Re: effective_cache_size less than shared_buffers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Should we log a warning at startup when effective_cache_size is less
>> than shared_buffers?
> 
> I would say no. Although I could see an argument for the default
> effective_cache_size always being the same size as shared_buffers.

That's certainly not what we've meant historically by ECS.  Generally 
it's been the size of shared_buffers *and* the FS cache.  If it were 
just the size of shared_buffers, then we wouldn't need a 2nd setting, 
would we?

--Josh