On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki < tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander > Okay and I think partially it might be because we don't have > > writeback > > optimization (done in 9.6) for Windows. However, still the broader > > question stands that whether above data is sufficient to say that > > we > > can recommend the settings of shared_buffers on Windows similar > > to > > Linux? > > > > > > > > > > Based on this optimization we might want to keep the text that says large > > shared buffers on Windows aren't as effective perhaps, and just remove > the > > sentence that explicitly says don't go over 512MB? > > Just removing the reference to the size would make users ask a question > "What size is the effective upper limit?" > True, but that's a question for other platforms as well, isn't it? We can certainly find a different phrasing for it, but ISTM that we know that it might be a problem, but we just don't know where the limit is? Maybe something that suggests to people that they need to test their way to the answer? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
