Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

2003-07-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should the default max number of connections first try something greater > than what Apache sets by default (256 for prefork, 400 for worker)? We could do that. I'm a little worried about setting default values that are likely to cause problems with e

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

2003-07-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 15:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. What should be the set of tested values? I have it as >buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50 >connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10 > but we could certainly argu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

2003-07-04 Thread Joe Conway
Tom Lane wrote: 1. Does this approach seem like a reasonable solution to our problem of some machines having unrealistically small kernel limits on shared memory? Yes, it does to me. 2. If so, can I get away with applying this post-feature-freeze? I can argue that it's a bug fix, but perhaps some