Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:57:21 -0500
- Message-id: <43AD7DF1(dot)8090600(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, I fat-fingered the calculations I was doing last night --- the actual shmem consumption in CVS tip seems to be more like 17K per max_connection increment, assuming max_locks_per_connection = 64.
ITYM max_locks_per_transaction (which as the docs say is confusingly named).So if we went to 256, say, as an upper limit on max_connections, that would account for an extra 2.6Mb of memory use - a pretty modest increase, really.
cheers andrew
- References:
- default resource limits
- From: Andrew Dunstan
- Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- From: Andrew Dunstan
- Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- From: Tom Lane
- default resource limits
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCHES] default resource limits
- Indexes: