Tom Lane wrote:
> 1. Does this approach seem like a reasonable solution to our problem
> of some machines having unrealistically small kernel limits on shared
> memory?
Yes, it does to me.
> 2. If so, can I get away with applying this post-feature-freeze? I can
> argue that it's a bug fix, but perhaps some will disagree.
I'd go with calling it a bug fix, or rather pluging a known deficiency.
> 3. What should be the set of tested values? I have it as
> buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50
> connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10
> but we could certainly argue for different rules.
These seem reasonable. We might want to output a message, even if the
highest values fly, that tuning is recommended for best performance.
Joe