| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-10 16:33:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200806100933.42232.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ron,
> I wonder if the fastest way to generate the configurator
> would be to simply ask everyone to post their tuned
> postgresql.conf files along with a brief description of
> the use case for that file. The we could group the
> use-cases into various classes; and average the values
> of the submitted files. Then the configurator's one
> question "choose which use case most closely matches
> yours from this list".
This has been proposed a number of times, but is still infeasable for the
simple reason that a lot of settings are dependant on how much RAM you have
on the machine. "Sample configs" would just result in people trying to set
their shared_buffers to 150% of system RAM if they have a lightweight system,
or in having 500 different sample configurations, which would produce even
*more* user confusion.
A generator makes more sense.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-06-10 16:37:37 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-10 16:03:06 | Re: Timezone abbreviations - out but not in? |