| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |
| Date: | 2009-10-26 23:47:56 |
| Message-ID: | 200910270047.57185.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:42:39 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Still far from convinced on that one. But effective_io_concurrency
> > should be included even in the first pass.
> I think a design that is limited to a prespecified set of GUCs is
> broken by definition. It'd be better to make it work like
> ALTER DATABASE SET.
How should that work if there are conflicting settings in two tablespaces when
tables from both are used?
Some settings make sense per tablespace, but I dont see a valid model to
accept e.g. 'standard_conforming_strings' set to 'off' in one and 'on' in the
other...
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-10-26 23:52:53 | Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-26 23:42:39 | Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |