On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11/17/16 12:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> No, I'm not recommending a higher value, but just removing the doubtful >> sentences of 512MB upper limit. The advantage is that eliminating this >> sentence will make a chance for users to try best setting. > > I think this is a good point. The information is clearly > wrong/outdated. We have no new better information, but we should remove > misleading outdated advice and let users find new advice. Basically, > this just puts Windows on par with other platforms with regard to > shared_buffers tuning, doesn't it? > > I'm inclined to commit the original patch if there are no objections.
+1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
