On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:04 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >> Should we log a warning at startup when effective_cache_size is less > >> than shared_buffers? > > > > I would say no. Although I could see an argument for the default > > effective_cache_size always being the same size as shared_buffers. > > That's certainly not what we've meant historically by ECS. Generally > it's been the size of shared_buffers *and* the FS cache. If it were > just the size of shared_buffers, then we wouldn't need a 2nd setting, > would we?
We can't determine the size of the FS cache. We can determine the size of the shared_buffers. The idea here is to eliminate one of those by default PostgreSQL is slow issues. Since we are already using X amount of shared_buffers we know we have at least X amount of cache. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > --Josh > > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers