Re: Wait events monitoring future development

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "ik(at)postgresql-consulting(dot)com" <ik(at)postgresql-consulting(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wait events monitoring future development
Date: 2016-08-09 04:17:28
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F5C01F2@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> I used to think of that this kind of features should be enabled by default,
> because when I was working at the previous company, I had only few features
> to understand what is happening inside PostgreSQL by observing production
> databases. I needed those features enabled in the production databases when
> I was called.
>
> However, now I have another opinion. When we release the next major release
> saying 10.0 with the wait monitoring, many people will start their benchmark
> test with a configuration with *the default values*, and if they see some
> performance decrease, for example around 10%, they will be talking about
> it as the performance decrease in PostgreSQL 10.0. It means PostgreSQL will
> be facing difficult reputation.
>
> So, I agree with the features should be disabled by default for a while.

I understand your feeling well. This is a difficult decision. Let's hope for trivial overhead.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2016-08-09 04:37:25 Re: dsm_unpin_segment
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-08-09 04:07:10 Re: Wait events monitoring future development