Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions

On 10/10/2013 02:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Other votes? Other ideas?
>> 5) test and set it in initdb.
> Are you advocating for that option, or just calling out that it's
> possible? I'd say that's closely related to option #3, except at
> initdb time rather than run-time - and it might be preferable to #3
> for some of the same reasons discussed on the thread about tuning
> work_mem, namely, that having it change from one postmaster lifetime
> to the next might lead to user astonishment.

Mainly just to throw it into the mix, But like you I think it's probably
a better option than #3 for the reason you give. It also has the
advantage of keeping any probing code out of the backend.

cheers

andrew