Some corrections:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SNIP
> If you commonly have 100 transactions doing that at once, then you
> multiply much memory they use times 100 to get total buffer >> SPACE << in
> use,
> and the rest is likely NEVER going to get u
I just wanted to add to my previous post that shared_memory generally
has a performance envelope of quickly increasing performance as you
first increase share_memory, then a smaller performance step with each
increase in shared_memory. Once all of the working set of your data
fits, the return star
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Jessica Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a Linux system, if the total memory is 4G and the shmmax is set to 4G, I
> know it is bad, but how bad can it be? Just trying to understand the impact
> the "shmmax" parameter can have on Postgres and the entire sys
In response to Jessica Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On a Linux system, if the total memory is 4G and the shmmax is set to 4G, I
> know it is bad, but how bad can it be? Just trying to understand the impact
> the "shmmax" parameter can have on Postgres and the entire system after
> Postgres
