Thanks for looking at this. At Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:19:45 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAHGQGwHEnT+-S+axWKQPBYSg6z852OfgS6gDXi0Ycpq5QW=i...@mail.gmail.com> > >> ISTM that you also need to change the descriptions about SEMMNI and SEMMNS > >> under the Table 17-1. > > > > Oops! Thank you for pointing it out. > > > > The original description doesn't mention the magic-number ('5' in > > the above formulas, which previously was '4') so I haven't added > > anything about it. > > > > Process of which the number is limited by max_worker_processes is > > called 'background process' (not 'backend worker') in the > > documentation so I used the name to mention it in the additional > > description. > > > > The difference in the body text for 9.2, 9.3 is only a literal > > '4' to '5' in the formula. > > Thanks for updating the patches! > > They look good to me except that the formulas don't include the number of > background processes requesting shared memory access, i.e., > GetNumShmemAttachedBgworkers(), in 9.3. Isn't it better to use the following > formula in 9.3? > > ceil((max_connections + autovacuum_max_workers + number of > background proceses + 5) / 16) > > Attached patch uses the above formula for 9.3. I'm thinking to push your > patches to 9.2, 9.4, 9.5, master, also push the attached one to 9.3. > Comments?
One concern is that users don't have any simple way to know how many bg-workers a server runs in their current configuration. The formula donsn't make sense without it. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers