| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andreas Kling <andreas(dot)kling(at)acgnystrom(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options |
| Date: | 2008-02-17 17:53:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200802171853.51916.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think at the time we set the current minimum -B we were still
> intending that you could run in a half meg or so SHMMAX allocation.
> That's certainly history. Maybe we should target 2 meg as the rock
> bottom minimum?
That makes sense to me. It corresponds to 128 connections under the old
arithmetic, which seems reasonable all around.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-17 23:21:14 | Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-16 22:23:44 | Re: [PATCH] Don't bail with legitimate -N/-B options |