Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. I'm concerned that PostgreSQL should work out of the box for
> everyone.
Agreed.
> And I would prefer that PostgreSQL works the same on every
> platform out of the box.
Well, I'm not sure that we need to take that as far as saying that
default
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
>> raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
>> (yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).
> On Modern(tm) systems, 8 MB is just as arbit
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We could offer a --with switch to manually choose the default, too.
> Good idea, yes. Not sure if we need a --with switch because they can
> just edit the postgresql.conf or postgresql.conf.sample file.
Well, we have a --with switch for DEF_MAXBACKEN
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmm. Anyone like the idea of a platform-specific default established
>> by configure? We could set it in the template file on platforms where
>> the default SHMMAX is too small to allow 1000 buffers.
> Template file seems like a good idea for platfor
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This does remind me that I'd been thinking of suggesting that we
>> raise the default -B to something more reasonable, maybe 1000 or so
>> (yielding an 8-meg-plus shared memory area).
> BSD/OS has a 4MB max but we document how to increase it by recompi
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Strange that even at 1024 performance still drops off at 7. Seems it
> may be more than buffer thrashing.
Yeah, if anything the knee in the curve seems to be worse at 1024
buffers. Curious. Deserves more investigation, perhaps.
This does remind me t
