Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think at the time we set the current minimum -B we were still
>> intending that you could run in a half meg or so SHMMAX allocation.
>> That's certainly history. Maybe we should target 2 meg as the rock
>> bottom minimum?
> That
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think at the time we set the current minimum -B we were still
> intending that you could run in a half meg or so SHMMAX allocation.
> That's certainly history. Maybe we should target 2 meg as the rock
> bottom minimum?
That makes sense to me. It corresponds to 128 connections
