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

Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>,<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)
Date: 2011-04-04 12:07:00
Message-ID: 4D996E14020000250003C1C7@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas  wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
 
>> It would probably take less than a day to flesh out this idea and
>> make it happen, but it does seem like a rather large change for
>> late alpha.
 
> what we're trying to avoid is committing new stuff that may require
> additional cleanup, not cleaning up the stuff we already did
> commit. Once we get to beta I'll be less enthusiastic about making
> changes like this
 
+1 for fixing it, with full agreement with Robert's project
management perspective on the issue.
 
Having worked in this area a bit I definitely see the need in
general, and for auto-tuning we pretty much have to do this to get it
right.  I think we should be edging into more auto-tuning
capabilities as we figure them out, making this all the more
important.
 
-Kevin

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2011-04-04 14:25:54
Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2011-04-04 11:35:13
Subject: Re: Proposal: q-gram GIN and GiST indexes

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