Casey Duncan wrote:
Seems like the unit used for shared_buffers (and others) should be
megabytes then with a minimum of 1 (or more). Is less than 1MB
granularity really useful here?
Yes, there are platforms that allow as little as 512 kB of shared memory
by default.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
#shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
#temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
#effective_cache_size = 8000kB
Are there any reasons to continue to use 1000-unit numbers? Megabyte-unit
(32MB and
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:03:50AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
#shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
#temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
#effective_cache_size = 8000kB
Are there any
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
The reason with the shared_buffers is that the detection code in
initdb has 400kB as minimum value, and it would be pretty
complicated to code the detection code to handle both kB and MB
units. If someone wants to try it, though, please go ahead.
What about 0.4MB?
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Montag, 25. September 2006 04:04 schrieb ITAGAKI Takahiro:
#shared_buffers = 32000kB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
#temp_buffers = 8000kB # min 800kB
#effective_cache_size = 8000kB
Are there any reasons to continue
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#max_fsm_pages = 160# min max_fsm_relations*16, 6 bytes each
max_fsm_pages doesn't have a discernible unit
Yes, max_fsm_*pages* doesn't have a unit, but can we treat the value as
the amount of trackable database size by fsm or estimated
