Hi, On 2023-04-09 16:40:54 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, Apr 09, 2023 at 02:45:16PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > It's not *just* that scenario. With a few concurrent connections you can get > > into problematic territory even with halfway reasonable shared buffers. > > I am not familiar with such cases. You could get there with 64MB shared > buffers and 256 simultaneous commits of new-refilenode-creating transactions, > but I'd still file that under going out of one's way to use tiny shared > buffers relative to the write activity. What combination did you envision?
I'd not say it's common, but it's less crazy than running with 128kB of s_b... There's also the issue that log_newpage_range() is used in number of places where we could have a lot of pre-existing buffer pins. So pinning another 64 buffers could tip us over. Greetings, Andres Freund