| From: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website |
| Date: | 2015-09-28 20:43:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5609A669.2060502@darrenduncan.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 2015-09-28 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/27/2015 12:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Also, I think "WAL Buffer auto-tuning" should be cut. It doesn't
>> warrant inclusion here. There are one or two other items that should
>> be pruned too, but less obviously so.
>
> I disagree here; I think that anything which eliminates a need for
> manual tuning is a significant feature. Expecially if you're looking at
> the chart and trying to remember "hey, do I need to tune checkpoint
> segments on this version?"
I totally agree with Josh. Especially for newer or less-savvy users, this means
it just became easier to use Postgres in a performant way, and ease of use gets
customers. -- Darren Duncan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2015-10-14 18:38:45 | recent Gartner's publication |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-09-28 17:22:53 | Re: Parallel VACUUM in feature matrix on website |