Re: cvs head? initdb?

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: cvs head? initdb?
Date: 2003-11-14 19:23:34
Message-ID: 877k22kb49.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> people would always want to have those choices (especially for doing
>> development/testing/benchmarking between the different methods) the
>> question is is it worth the effort to give people those options?

To me, the question is whether it's worth the additional complexity
for users and administrators, and to a lesser extent the code
complexity. (I think the answer is "no")

> And in the case of the cache strategy, the point is that different
> access patterns might be served better by different strategies.

Granted -- but IMHO it would be better to concentrate on making sure
that ARC adapts to any access pattern so that the set of access
patterns where you _really want_ LRU is a small as possible, if not
empty.

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-11-14 19:33:27 Re: [ADMIN] Problem with compilation 7.3.4
Previous Message P.J. "Josh" Rovero 2003-11-14 19:19:36 Re: 7.4RC2 regression failur and not running stats collector