From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Westermann <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: zheap storage_engine parameter, shouldn't this raise an error? |
Date: | 2018-11-03 09:55:19 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JF-0ufA0e3ssG2vs1a5YvuDnWnBexj1v_K2WF2Q3xBNA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 3:13 PM Daniel Westermann <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I believe this should raise an error or at least a warning?
>>
>
> Sure, if we want we can raise the error or warning for this, but this is a parameter mainly to test zheap with existing set of regression tests. I am not sure if we want to keep it or even if we want to have any such parameter for testing purpose in what form it will be present. So, adding more checks at this stage around this parameter doesn't seem advisable to me.
>
Instead of starting new threads for each report, it might be better to
report it on the zheap thread [1].
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-11-03 10:16:30 | Re: pgbench doc fix |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-11-03 09:51:48 | Re: zheap storage_engine parameter, shouldn't this raise an error? |