From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 18:42:24 |
Message-ID: | 6816.1412361744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
>> 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.
In particular, the cost of putting this one back would be documenting
what it does and how to tune it. As mentioned upthread, we're not
following that Informix precedent ;-)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-03 18:42:29 | Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-10-03 18:39:11 | Re: Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept) |