Jeff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 15:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Strikes me that expressing that parameter as a percentage of >> shared_buffers might make it less in need of manual tuning ...
> The original patch was a percentage of effective_cache_size, because in > theory it may be helpful to have this parameter larger than shared > buffers. Synchronized Scannning can take advantage of OS buffer cache as > well. I didn't say you couldn't allow it to be more than 100% ;-). But basing it on effective_cache_size strikes me as a bad idea because that parameter is seldom better than a wild guess. shared_buffers at least means something. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq