Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 09:06:23 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Christoph Zwerschke <cito@online.de>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Shared memory usage in PostgreSQL 9.1
Message-ID: <20111204140623.GK24234@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <4EDA1886.6090105@online.de>
 <4EDA3391.2070803@fuzzy.cz>
 <4EDA5632.8090801@online.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K9fR5eBdO1VxXkhU"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4EDA5632.8090801@online.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org

--K9fR5eBdO1VxXkhU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

* Christoph Zwerschke (cito@online.de) wrote:
> (Btw, what negative consequences - if any - does it have if I set
> kernel.shmmax higher as necessary, like all available memory? Does
> this limit serve only as a protection against greedy applications?)

Didn't see this get answered...  The long-and-short of that there aren't
any negative consequences of having it higher, as I understand it
anyway, except the risk of greedy apps.  In some cases, shared memory
can't be swapped out, which makes it a bit more risky than 'regular'
memory getting sucked up by some app.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--K9fR5eBdO1VxXkhU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk7bfl8ACgkQrzgMPqB3kiga3gCfdzhXEPbdq0GJYq/zvfVv3XdY
8ZYAnRjaSr4PsywRvPXAgtMRbBskJ7UL
=kh7/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--K9fR5eBdO1VxXkhU--