Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
Date: 2009-10-26 23:47:56
Message-ID: 200910270047.57185.andres@anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:42:39 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Still far from convinced on that one. But effective_io_concurrency
> > should be included even in the first pass.
> I think a design that is limited to a prespecified set of GUCs is
> broken by definition.  It'd be better to make it work like
> ALTER DATABASE SET.
How should that work if there are conflicting settings in two tablespaces when 
tables from both are used?
Some settings make sense per tablespace, but I dont see a valid model to 
accept e.g. 'standard_conforming_strings' set to 'off' in one and  'on' in the 
other...

Andres

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-10-26 23:52:53
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-26 23:42:39
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group