Re: Announcing Veil

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 04:00:38
Message-ID: 29061.1128657638@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-07 04:10:25 Re: Announcing Veil
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-07 03:56:20 Re: Announcing Veil