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
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 |