Re: Posix Shared Mem patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date
Msg-id 27157.1340992133@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Posix Shared Mem patch  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
>> know how to get that number on some platforms. 

> I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
> using it where we can't.

Because then we still need to define, and document, a sensible behavior
on the machines where we can't get it.  And document that we do it two
different ways, and document which machines we do it which way on.

>> There's also the issue
>> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
>> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
>> itself to physical RAM.

> 10% isn't assuming dedicated.

Really?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch