Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> +1, I like the idea. Would it still be there to override if necessary?

> Depends what people want to do.  We could make the default "0kB", and
> define that to mean "auto-tune", or we could remove the parameter
> altogether.  I think I was envisioning the latter, but if people are
> hesitant to do that we could do the former instead.

I think we need to keep the override capability until the autotune
algorithm has proven itself in the field for a couple of years.

I agree with Josh that a negative value should be used to select the
autotune method.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers at 2011-01-13 22:31:04 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers at 2011-01-15 06:51:50 from Greg Smith

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tatsuo Ishii	Date: 2011-01-14 00:31:07
	Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Previous:	From: David E. Wheeler	Date: 2011-01-14 00:22:31
	Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]