Hi, On 2024-02-19 09:19:16 -0500, Joe Conway wrote: > On 2/18/24 15:35, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2024-02-18 17:06:09 +0530, Robert Haas wrote: > > > How many people set shared_buffers to something that's not a whole > > > number of GB these days? > > > > I'd say the vast majority of postgres instances in production run with less > > than 1GB of s_b. Just because numbers wise the majority of instances are > > running on small VMs and/or many PG instances are running on one larger > > machine. There are a lot of instances where the total available memory is > > less than 2GB. > > > > > I mean I bet it happens, but in practice if you rounded to the nearest GB, > > > or even the nearest 2GB, I bet almost nobody would really care. I think > > > it's > > > fine to be opinionated here and hold the line at a relatively large > > > granule, > > > even though in theory people could want something else. > > > > I don't believe that at all unfortunately. > > Couldn't we scale the rounding, e.g. allow small allocations as we do now, > but above some number always round? E.g. maybe >= 2GB round to the nearest > 256MB, >= 4GB round to the nearest 512MB, >= 8GB round to the nearest 1GB, > etc?
That'd make the translation considerably more expensive. Which is important, given how common an operation this is. Greetings, Andres Freund
