Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths
Date: 2020-05-14 11:34:53
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJooZZpZpK0eTNRTEV0hfG2eSciX5ufp9J3PWSGQCQP3A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:58 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Shouldn't you close out the "Should we rename
> effective_io_concurrency?" Postgres 13 open item now?

Yeah, that doesn't really seem worth the churn. I'll move it to the
resolved list in a day or two if no one shows up to argue for a
rename.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2020-05-14 12:54:25 Re: making update/delete of inheritance trees scale better
Previous Message Christoph Berg 2020-05-14 11:10:47 Re: ldap tls test fails in some environments