| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 21:58:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20141003215814.GB7158@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-03 17:55:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-10-03 12:40:21 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Well, I think the issue is that having a GUC that can't reasonably be
> >> tuned by 95% of our users is nearly useless. Few users are going to run
> >> benchmarks to see what the optimal value is.
>
> > It's possible to convince customers to play with a performance
> > influencing parameter and see how the results are. Even in
> > production.
>
> I'm a bit dubious that people will be willing to experiment in production
> with a GUC that requires a database restart to change.
I've convinced customers to restart databases with several different
shared_buffers settings... So I'm pretty sure it's possible, in *some*
cases, for xloginsert_slots.
And even if it's just test/pre-production machines - they're not going
to benchmark settings they can't reasonably set in production.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-03 22:06:24 | Re: Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-03 21:55:19 | Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4 |