On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:05 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 4:00 PM Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:
> > I think the only unresolved question in my mind was if we should add a
> > similar note to the original patch to max_prepared_xacts as well; do
> > you intend to do that?
>
> I didn't intend to do that. I don't think it would be incorrect to do
> so, but then we're kind of getting into a slippery slope of trying to
> label every parameter that has increases shared memory usage or any
> other kind of research consumption, and there are probably (pulls
> number out of the air) twenty of those. It seems more worthwhile to
> mention it for max_connections than the other (deducts one from
> previous random guess) nineteen because it affects a whole lot more
> things, like the size of the fsync queue and the size of the lock
> table, and also because it tends to get set to relatively large
> values, unlike, for example, autovacuum_max_workers. If you think we
> should go further than just doing max_connections, then I think we
> either need to (a) add a note to every single bloody parameter that
> affects the size of shared memory or (b) prove that the subset where
> we add such a note have a significantly larger impact than the others
> where we don't. Do you think we should get into all that?
>
Nope. Let's do the best bang for the buck improvement and we can see
if we get any feedback that indicates more needs to be done.
Robert Treat
https://xzilla.net