Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [216.151.103.158])
	by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f48KcJA48614
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Tue, 8 May 2001 16:38:21 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f48KbmR08137;
	Tue, 8 May 2001 16:37:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Default shared memory SGML mention 
In-reply-to: <200105082023.f48KNMm28570@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200105082023.f48KNMm28570@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Tue, 08 May 2001 16:23:22 -0400"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:37:48 -0400
Message-ID: <8134.989354268@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200105/49
X-Sequence-Number: 732

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 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.

			regards, tom lane