| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-12 23:17:32 |
| Message-ID: | 15711.1213312652@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I am kind of lost how this would work logically and am willing to
>> think
>> about it some more, but I do think we aren't going to simplify
>> postgresql.conf without such a facility.
> Agreed. And I think it's a lot more elegant for dealing with day-to-
> day tuning than some kind of external wizzard.
You guys call this "simplification"? You're out of your minds.
This proposal is ridiculously complicated, and yet it still fails
even to consider adjusting non-numeric parameters. And what about
things that require more than a trivial arithmetic expression to
compute? It's not hard at all to imagine wanting log, sqrt, etc.
We do not need to put computational capability into GUC. Any
computations needed to determine a parameter setting should be done
by a wizard.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-06-12 23:27:59 | Re: How to Sponsor a Feature |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-12 23:10:54 | Re: b64_encode and decode |