On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 16:30, Ed L. wrote:
> On Monday December 5 2005 3:17 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There isn't any particularly good reason to be resizing
> > shared_buffers on the fly anyway; much easier to let the
> > kernel adapt the size of its disk cache instead. Best
> > practice for shared_
On Monday December 5 2005 3:17 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> There isn't any particularly good reason to be resizing
> shared_buffers on the fly anyway; much easier to let the
> kernel adapt the size of its disk cache instead. Best
> practice for shared_buffers is to set it somewhere in the
> range of 10K
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Ed L. wrote:
>> We have ~75 pgsql clusters running in environments where downtime
>> comes at a premium cost. We often run multiple clusters on a
>> single box, and find it necessary to adjust the size of the
>> static DB cache as we add or move clusters. Unfortunately
Ed L. wrote:
> We have ~75 pgsql clusters running in environments where downtime
> comes at a premium cost. We often run multiple clusters on a
> single box, and find it necessary to adjust the size of the
> static DB cache as we add or move clusters. Unfortunately, that
> means some downtime
