| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4 |
| Date: | 2014-10-03 18:07:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20141003180745.GF14522@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
> I remember Informix had a setting that had no description except "try
> different values to see if it helps performance" --- we don't want to do
> that.
>
> What if we emit a server message if the setting is too low? That's how
> we handle checkpoint_segments.
>
> Not all GUC need to be straight forward to tune.
> If the gains are worthy I don't see any reason not to have it.
Every GUC add complexity to the system because people have to understand
it to know if they should tune it. No GUC is zero-cost.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-03 18:10:46 | Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4 |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-10-03 18:06:33 | Re: replicating DROP commands across servers |