On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 09:49:34AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I agree that thats a very narrow use case. And I'm not sure the use case of > a running server is even that important here - it's really the offline one > that's important. Or rather, the really compelling one is when there is a > server running but I want to check the value offline because it will > change. SHOW doesn't help there because it shows the value based on the > currently running configuration, not the new one after a restart.
You mean the case of a server where one would directly change postgresql.conf on a running server, and use postgres -C to see how much the kernel settings need to be changed before the restart? > Hmm. So what's the solution on windows? I guess maybe it's not as important > there because there is no limit on huge pages, but generally getting the > expected shared memory usage might be useful? Just significantly less > important. Contrary to Linux, we don't need to care about the number of large pages that are necessary because there is no equivalent of vm.nr_hugepages on Windows (see [1]), do we? If that were the case, we'd have a use case for huge_page_size, additionally. That's the case where shared_memory_size_in_huge_pages comes in handy, as much as does huge_page_size, and note that shared_memory_size works on WIN32. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/large-page-support -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
