On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 11/29/16 9:58 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> Considering a single SSD can do 70% of that limit, I would say >> yes. >> >> Next question becomes... should there even be an upper limit? >> >> >> Where the contortions needed to prevent calculation overflow become >> annoying? >> >> I'm not a big fan of nannyism in general, but the limits on this >> parameter seem particularly pointless. You can't write out more buffers >> than exist in the dirty state, nor more than implied >> by bgwriter_lru_multiplier. So what is really the worse that can happen >> if you make it too high? > > > Attached is a patch that ups the limit to INT_MAX / 2, which is the same as > shared_buffers.
This looks fine to me. -- 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
