On 29 March 2012 00:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm planning to commit the patch with a USAGE_NON_EXEC_STICK value
> of 3.0, which is the largest value that stays below 10% wastage.
> We can twiddle that logic later, so if you want to experiment with an
> alternate decay rule, feel free.
I think I may well end up doing so when I get a chance. This seems
like the kind of problem that will be solved only when we get some
practical experience (i.e. use the tool on something closer to a
production system than the regression tests).
doc-patch is attached. I'm not sure if I got the balance right - it
may be on the verbose side.
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joachim Wieland||Date: 2012-03-29 00:28:54|
|Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-03-28 23:14:43|
|Subject: Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |