On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 15:33, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > It seems rather odd that our minimum for temp_buffers is 100 while the minimum > for shared_buffers, which is shared across connections!, is 16.
Hmm, given that, I'd say we also increase that minimum shared_buffers to a value >= 33 as the highest number of pages that can be addressed in one WAL record: We allow users to write WAL records with 33 pages without pinning the relevant buffers, but recovery doesn't do direct-to-disk options. So, I think it's better to increase this limit. > Does anybody see a reason we shouldn't lower temp_buffers to match > shared_buffers? None that I can think of. As Robert said, go for it. Kind regards, Matthias van de Meent Neon (https://neon.tech)
