| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CLOG contention |
| Date: | 2012-01-06 16:50:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+TOBYrEg+KpsrVNpxeRj2c5QA5Cuh4atZPuzyMj2rRCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Please can we either make it user configurable?
>
> Weren't you just complaining that *I* was overcomplicating things?
> I see no evidence to justify inventing a user-visible GUC here.
> We have rough consensus on both the need for and the shape of a formula,
> with just minor discussion about the exact parameters to plug into it.
> Punting the problem off to a GUC is not a better answer.
As long as we get 32 buffers on big systems, I have no complaint.
I'm sorry if I moaned at you personally.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-01-06 17:10:09 | Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-06 16:37:25 | Re: Poorly thought out code in vacuum |