Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

On 4/21/14 8:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2014-04-21 11:45:49 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> That seems to make more sense. I can't imagine why this would be a runtime
>>> parameter as opposed to build time.
>> Because that implies that packagers and porters need to make that
>> decision. If it's a GUC people can benchmark it and decide.
> As against that, the packager would be more likely to get it right
> (or even to know that there's an issue).

Can the package builder not set the default for the runtime tunable?

Honestly we're about to select a db platform for another FreeBSD based
system we are building, I strongly hoping that we can get back to
sysvshm easily otherwise we may have to select another store.

-Alfred (who still remembers back when Tom had a login on our primary db
to help us. :) )