On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:41 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2024-Feb-27, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Here's the complete set, with these two names using the singular. > > BTW one thing I had not noticed is that before this patch we have > minimum shmem size that's lower than the lowest you can go with the new > code. > > This means Postgres may no longer start when extremely tight memory > restrictions (and of course use more memory even when idle or with small > databases). I wonder to what extent should we make an effort to relax > that. For small, largely inactive servers, this is just memory we use > for no good reason. However, anything we do here will impact > performance on the high end, because as Andrey says this will add > calculations and jumps where there are none today. > > I was just comparing the minimum memory required for SLRU when the system is minimally configured, correct me if I am wrong. SLRU unpatched patched commit_timestamp_buffers 4 16 subtransaction_buffers 32 16 transaction_buffers 4 16 multixact_offset_buffers 8 16 multixact_member_buffers 16 16 notify_buffers 8 16 serializable_buffers 16 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- total buffers 88 112 so that is < 200kB of extra memory on a minimally configured system, IMHO this should not matter. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
