Am Samstag, 24. Dezember 2005 00:20 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
The rationale is one connection per apache thread (which on Windows
defaults to 400). If people think this is too many I could live with
winding it back a bit - the defaults number of apache workers on Unix is
250, IIRC.
It's 150. I
On Saturday 24 December 2005 06:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Samstag, 24. Dezember 2005 00:20 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
The rationale is one connection per apache thread (which on Windows
defaults to 400). If people think this is too many I could live with
winding it back a bit - the
I wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nearly everyone seems to agree that the default for max_fsm_pages is
woefully low, so I would like to have the default for this set
unconditionally to 200,000 rather than 20,000. The cost would be
just over 1Mb of
er patch attached this time
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nearly everyone seems to agree that the default for max_fsm_pages
is woefully low, so I would like to have the default for this set
unconditionally to 200,000
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:38:56PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
What numbers would you like? If what I suggested seems odd, how about
targets of 400 connections, 4000 shared_buffers and 200,000
max_fsm_pages?
Here's a patch that does what I had in mind. On my modest workstation it
daveg wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 03:38:56PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
What numbers would you like? If what I suggested seems odd, how about
targets of 400 connections, 4000 shared_buffers and 200,000
max_fsm_pages?
Here's a patch that does what I had in mind. On my modest
daveg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand the motivation for so many connections by default, it
seems wasteful in most cases.
I think Andrew is thinking about database-backed Apache servers ...
Some quick checks say that CVS tip's demand for shared memory increases
by about 26kB per
