On 2013-09-13 10:50:06 -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > The stock documentation advice I probably needs to be revised to so > that's the lesser of 2GB and 25%.
I think that would be a pretty bad idea. There are lots of workloads where people have postgres happily chugging along with s_b lots bigger than that and see benefits. We have a couple people reporting mostly undiagnosed (because that turns out to be hard!) problems that seem to be avoided with smaller s_b. We don't even remotely know enough about the problem to make such general recommendations. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
