| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Date: | 2012-05-14 06:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYOW8OQugbJT2=0HcoKCgbb+Y0NNAbz0f+n4BvRFX-XZQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Keeping a parameter without any clue as to whether it has benefit is
> just wasting people's time.
No, arguing that we should remove a parameter because it's useless
when you haven't bothered to test whether or not it actually is
useless is wasting people's time.
> We don't ADD parameters based on supposition, why should we avoid
> removing parameters that have no measured benefit?
If they have no actual benefit, of course we should remove them. If
they have no measured benefit because no one has bothered to measure,
that's not a reason to remove them.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-14 06:30:11 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-14 06:07:57 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |