Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay

On 26 March 2013 14:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> So please, lets go with a simple solution now that allows users to say
>> what they want.
>
> Simon, this is just empty posturing, as your arguments have nothing
> whatsoever to do with whether the above description applies to your
> patch.

Waiting for an auto-tuned solution to *every* problem means we just
sit and watch bad things happen, knowing how to fix them for
particular cases yet not being able to do anything at all.

> More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob
> does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution. As
> everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be
> needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such
> testing in the 9.3 timeframe. This problem needs to be attacked in
> an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under
> time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing.

Well, it has been tackled like that and we've *all* got nowhere. No
worries, I can wait a year for that beer.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services