On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <
tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
>         Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have
> > writeback
> >       optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows.  However, still the broader
> >       question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that
> > we
> >       can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar
> > to
> >       Linux?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large
> > shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove
> the
> > sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB?
> Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question
> "What size is the effective upper limit?"

True, but that's a question for other platforms as well, isn't it? We can
certainly find a different phrasing for it, but ISTM that we know that it
might be a problem, but we just don't know where the limit is? Maybe
something that suggests to people that they need to test their way to the

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to