Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:14:00 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: tender wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning
 the SLRU lock
Message-ID: <202402011014.v4qc54smx4yd@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFiTN-u1PxTo2BkW8oOLVKmn=k9i7oBJzMCd0bLRZpnXWArrdA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202402011014.v4qc54smx4yd%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Feb-01, Dilip Kumar wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:19 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >
> > postgres -c lc_messages=C -c shared_buffers=$((512*17))
> >
> > 2024-02-01 10:48:13.548 CET [1535379] FATAL:  invalid value for parameter "transaction_buffers": 17
> > 2024-02-01 10:48:13.548 CET [1535379] DETAIL:  "transaction_buffers" must be a multiple of 16
> 
> Maybe we should resize it to the next multiple of the SLRU_BANK_SIZE
> instead of giving an error?

Since this is the auto-tuning feature, I think it should use the
previous multiple rather than the next, but yeah, something like that.


While I have your attention -- if you could give a look to the 0001
patch I posted, I would appreciate it.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Los trabajadores menos efectivos son sistematicamente llevados al lugar
donde pueden hacer el menor daño posible: gerencia."  (El principio Dilbert)