Re: initdb profiles

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, aly(dot)dharshi(at)telus(dot)net, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: initdb profiles
Date: 2005-09-08 17:16:13
Message-ID: 432071DD.5020903@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus wrote:

>Folks,
>
>Help on the Configurator is actively solicited. I really think this is a
>better solution for this problem.
>http://www.pgfoundry.org/projects/configurator
>
>
>

I don't agree, for several reasons.

1. Steve has already told us most of his clients just go with the defaults
2. We don't have to pick a winner; improving initdb wouldn't obviate the
need for configurator
3. It's a cop-out. I think there's a reasoable expectation that we will
by default use some settings that work reasonably in typical cases.
Inviting people to use an add-on tool to tune postgres after initdb is
the sort of thing that gets postgres a bad name. We need to find some
sort of sweet spot between being machine hogs and being so conservative
that out of the box we run like a dog for typical users. Initdb already
has adaptive rules - look at the source - and Tom suggests adding
another set for max_fsm_pages. All I'm doing is to suggest that we need
to tweak those.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-09-08 17:16:41 Re: Attention PL authors: want to be listed in template table?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-09-08 17:08:56 Re: Rendezvous/Bonjour broken in 8.1 beta