On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:00 PM Robert Treat <r...@xzilla.net> wrote: > I think the only unresolved question in my mind was if we should add a > similar note to the original patch to max_prepared_xacts as well; do > you intend to do that?
I didn't intend to do that. I don't think it would be incorrect to do so, but then we're kind of getting into a slippery slope of trying to label every parameter that has increases shared memory usage or any other kind of research consumption, and there are probably (pulls number out of the air) twenty of those. It seems more worthwhile to mention it for max_connections than the other (deducts one from previous random guess) nineteen because it affects a whole lot more things, like the size of the fsync queue and the size of the lock table, and also because it tends to get set to relatively large values, unlike, for example, autovacuum_max_workers. If you think we should go further than just doing max_connections, then I think we either need to (a) add a note to every single bloody parameter that affects the size of shared memory or (b) prove that the subset where we add such a note have a significantly larger impact than the others where we don't. Do you think we should get into all that? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
