Re: Remove the comment on the countereffectiveness of large shared_buffers on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From: amul sul [mailto:sulamul@gmail.com]
> IMHO, I think we could remove third paragraph completely and generalised
> starting of second paragraph, somewhat looks likes as
> follow:
> 
>         <para>
> -        If you have a dedicated database server with 1GB or more of RAM,
> a
> -        reasonable starting value for <varname>shared_buffers</varname>
> is 25%
> -        of the memory in your system.  There are some workloads where even
> +        A reasonable starting value for
> <varname>shared_buffers</varname> is 25%
> +       of the RAM in your system.  There are some workloads where even
>          large settings for <varname>shared_buffers</varname> are
> effective, but
    >          because <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> also relies on the
>          operating system cache, it is unlikely that an allocation of more
> than

The third paragraph may be redundant, I'm a bit inclined to leave it for kindness and completeness.  The attached
revisedpatch just correct the existing typo (large -> larger).
 

I'll change the status to needs review.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa