"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just finished going through the initialization sequence to trace the
>> calculation of shared memory size, and what I find in CVS tip is that
>> it works out like this:
> Should the new formulati
On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously we are on the hairy edge of no longer
functioning at all in 1MB shared memory. I'm not sure there is a
whole
l
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 01:28:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yes; mostly from 2PC support I think. Try reducing
> >> max_prepared_transactions. (We might want to debate whether the default
> >> setting sho
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course this might not make it into 8.1, but it seems somewhat
> backwards to be setting the default config just to satisfy make check.
Some of us prefer "make installcheck" ... so I'd still resist setting
the defaults to values that would make the re
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously we are on the hairy edge of no longer
>> functioning at all in 1MB shared memory. I'm not sure there is a whole
>> lot we can do about this, but it's a tad irritating that clog,
I wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 8 buffers each, I think, no? That's 32 buffers total.
> You're right; I was thinking that NUM_SLRU_BUFFERS was 4, but I see it's
> now 8. Did we bump that up on the basis of any solid evidence?
Never mind, looks like that goes all the way
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously we are on the hairy edge of no longer
>> functioning at all in 1MB shared memory. I'm not sure there is a whole
>> lot we can do about this, but it's a tad irrit
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes, the decreasing of max_prepared_transaction helped (after some
testing, I've found that the max_prepared_transactions=3
max_connections=10 shared_buffers=20 was well enough to fit 1mb of
shared memory)
2
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes; mostly from 2PC support I think. Try reducing
>> max_prepared_transactions. (We might want to debate whether the default
>> setting should be smaller than 50 --- it looks to me like that's adding
>> over
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, are the shared memory requirements increased for 8.1 ?
Yes; mostly from 2PC support I think. Try reducing
max_prepared_transactions. (We might want to debate whether the default
setting should be smalle
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:30:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, the decreasing of max_prepared_transaction helped (after some
> > testing, I've found that the max_prepared_transactions=3
> > max_connections=10 shared_buffers=20 was well enough
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> >unfortunatly max_connections=10 is not enough to run
> >fully the make check :(, but I cannot raise more the max_connections
> >parameter
> >
> You can limit the number of connections that "make check" runs. We built
> that facility in for cygwi
Sergey E. Koposov wrote:
unfortunatly max_connections=10 is not enough to run
fully the make check :(, but I cannot raise more the max_connections
parameter
You can limit the number of connections that "make check" runs. We built
that facility in for cygwin, but it looks like you could
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, the decreasing of max_prepared_transaction helped (after some
> testing, I've found that the max_prepared_transactions=3
> max_connections=10 shared_buffers=20 was well enough to fit 1mb of
> shared memory)
20 buffers ... ugh. Obviously w
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, are the shared memory requirements increased for 8.1 ?
>
> Yes; mostly from 2PC support I think. Try reducing
> max_prepared_transactions. (We might want to debate whether the default
> setting should
"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, are the shared memory requirements increased for 8.1 ?
Yes; mostly from 2PC support I think. Try reducing
max_prepared_transactions. (We might want to debate whether the default
setting should be smaller than 50 --- it looks to me like that's
""Sergey E. Koposov"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> selecting default max_connections ... 10
> selecting default shared_buffers ... 50
> DETAIL: Failed system call was shmget(key=1, size=1957888, 03600).
>
> selecting default max_connections ... 10
> selecting default shared_buffers ... 20
> DETA
Hello,
I just found quite a strange behaviour of 8.1beta on SunOS:
uname -a:
SunOS sun46 5.8 Generic_108528-14 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-80
gcc -v:
Reading specs from
/systools/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/sparc-sun-solaris2.7/3.2.1/specs
Configured with: /disk-c/hiller/gcc-3.2.1/configure
--prefix=/systoo
18 matches
Mail list logo
