Tom Lane wrote:
1. Does this approach seem like a reasonable solution to our problem
of some machines having unrealistically small kernel limits on shared
memory?


Yes, it does to me.


2. If so, can I get away with applying this post-feature-freeze?  I can
argue that it's a bug fix, but perhaps some will disagree.

I'd go with calling it a bug fix, or rather pluging a known deficiency.


3. What should be the set of tested values?  I have it as
   buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50
   connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10
but we could certainly argue for different rules.

These seem reasonable. We might want to output a message, even if the highest values fly, that tuning is recommended for best performance.


Joe


---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to