On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 15:33, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems rather odd that our minimum for temp_buffers is 100 while the
minimum
> for shared_buffers, which is shared across connections!, is 16.
Hmm, given that, I'd say we also increase that minimum shared_buffers to a
value >= 33 as the highe
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 9:33 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Does anybody see a reason we shouldn't lower temp_buffers to match
> shared_buffers?
I do not see any such reason. I'd say go for it.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
On 2025-02-25 09:33:36 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> I am working on writing some tests for temporary tables. One of the tests is
> that we correctly handle running out of buffer pins. That's a bit more
> annoying than it needs to because the minimum for temp_buffers is 100.
>
> It seems rath
Hi,
I am working on writing some tests for temporary tables. One of the tests is
that we correctly handle running out of buffer pins. That's a bit more
annoying than it needs to because the minimum for temp_buffers is 100.
It seems rather odd that our minimum for temp_buffers is 100 while the min
