| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, veil-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Announcing Veil |
| Date: | 2005-10-07 04:10:25 |
| Message-ID: | 200510070410.j974AP214765@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to
> >> justify the overhead of a GUC variable.
>
> > True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature?
> > Seems they would have to.
>
> How you figure that? The proposed default value was 4, which seems
> fine to me, given that the known worldwide demand amounts to 1.
Oh, so you are going to give him a few slots. I thought we were going
to default to 0 and he was going to have to bump it up to use his
software. That sounds fine to me.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-10-07 04:14:39 | Re: Announcing Veil |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-07 04:00:38 | Re: Announcing Veil |