But I think it's still a good option.

For example, in servers where there are other applications running (a web server, for example) that are constantly accesing the disk and replacing cached postgresql pages in the kernel, having shared buffers could reduce this efect and assure the precense of our pages in memory... I gues :)

On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 13:50, Josh Berkus wrote:

> If we had a portable way
> of preventing the kernel from caching the same page, it would make more
> sense to run with large shared_buffers.

Really?  I thought we wanted to move the other way ... that is, if we could 
get over the portability issues, eliminate shared_buffers entirely and rely 
completely on the OS cache.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to