Tom Lane wrote:
> There's another reason for not setting shared_buffers huge, beyond the
> good ones Greg listed: the kernel may or may not consider a large
> shared-memory segment as potentially swappable.
Another is that on Windows, shared memory access is more expensive and
various people have noted that the smallest value for shared_buffers you
can get away with can yield better performance as it leaves more free
for the kernel to use, more efficiently.
Regards, Dave.