Re: Google SoC--Idea Request

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, "John DeSoi" <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Google SoC--Idea Request
Date: 2006-04-25 03:05:18
Message-ID: 9008.1145934318@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> While the student could do some benchmarking on relatively new
> hardware and make suggestions, I agree with Tom. Having to keep
> support for older platforms doesn't leave much flexibility to change
> the defaults.

Another point here is that the defaults *are* reasonable for development
and for small installations; the people who are complaining are the ones
who expect to run terabyte databases without any tuning. (I exaggerate
perhaps, but the point is valid.)

We've talked more than once about offering multiple alternative
starting-point postgresql.conf files to give people an idea of what to
do for small/medium/large installations. MySQL have done that for years
and it doesn't seem that users are unable to cope with the concept.
But doing this is (a) mostly a matter of testing and documenting, not
coding and (b) probably too small for a SoC project anyway.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-04-25 03:07:28 Re: TODO Item: ACL_CONNECT
Previous Message Wes 2006-04-25 02:58:34 Re: [GENERAL] Concurrency problem building indexes