On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 6 May 2014 23:47, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> If you're going to make >> an argument in favor of different tuning advice, then do it based on >> something in which you actually believe, based on hard evidence. > > The proposed default setting of 4x shared_buffers is unprincipled > *and* lacks hard evidence from you and everybody else.
+1. In my view, we probably should have set it to a much higher absolute default value. The main problem with setting it to any multiple of shared_buffers that I can see is that shared_buffers is a very poor proxy for what effective_cache_size is supposed to represent. In general, the folk wisdom around sizing shared_buffers has past its sell-by date. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
