Re: initdb profiles
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: initdb profiles |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 431FA0F0.8010309@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: initdb profiles (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: initdb profiles
Re: initdb profiles |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote: >Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >>I accept the "run from init.d" argument. So then, is there a case for >>increasing the limits that initdb works with, to reflect the steep >>rise we have seen in typically available memory at the low end? >> >> > >There is a compromise that I think we cannot make. For production >deployment, shared buffers are typically sized at about 10% to 25% of >available phyiscal memory. I don't think we want to have a default >installation of PostgreSQL that takes 10% or more of memory just like >that. It just doesn't look good. > > I have a single instance of apache running on this machine. It's not doing anything, but even so it's consuming 20% of physical memory. By contrast, my 3 postmasters are each consuming 0.5% of memory. All with default settings. I don't think we are in any danger of looking bad for being greedy. If anything we are in far greater danger of looking bad from being far too conservative and paying a performance price for that. There's nothing magical about the numbers we use. >So the question whether initdb should by default consider up to 1000 or >up to 4000 buffers is still worth discussion, but doesn't solve the >tuning issue to a reasonable degree. > > > > True, but that doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: