Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.navpoint.com [162.33.245.46]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f48KsUA54857 for ; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:54:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from pgman@candle.pha.pa.us) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f48KsNe29941; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200105082054.f48KsNe29941@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Default shared memory SGML mention In-Reply-To: <8134.989354268@sss.pgh.pa.us> "from Tom Lane at May 8, 2001 04:37:48 pm" To: Tom Lane Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:54:23 -0400 (EDT) CC: PostgreSQL-documentation X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL90 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Archive-Number: 200105/50 X-Sequence-Number: 733 > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Yes, but shared memory limits are based on buffers, not connections, > > right? The per-connection overhead is pretty small, no? > > I gave you my experimentally-derived formula already: > > 250Kb + 8350 * B + 14580 * N > > I don't see how you can consider the N term negligible. Oh, I misread it. I thought the 14.5k was part of the 250k. Let me fix that. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026