Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:11:07 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, tender wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning
 the SLRU lock
Message-ID: <202402271811.wimpj3onzqku@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202402271733.43375fmfpr2f@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202402271811.wimpj3onzqku%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Feb-27, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> Here's the complete set, with these two names using the singular.

BTW one thing I had not noticed is that before this patch we have
minimum shmem size that's lower than the lowest you can go with the new
code.

This means Postgres may no longer start when extremely tight memory
restrictions (and of course use more memory even when idle or with small
databases).  I wonder to what extent should we make an effort to relax
that.  For small, largely inactive servers, this is just memory we use
for no good reason.  However, anything we do here will impact
performance on the high end, because as Andrey says this will add
calculations and jumps where there are none today.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"We’ve narrowed the problem down to the customer’s pants being in a situation
 of vigorous combustion" (Robert Haas, Postgres expert extraordinaire)