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

Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay
Date: 2013-03-26 14:44:06
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So please, lets go with a simple solution now that allows users to say
> what they want.

Simon, this is just empty posturing, as your arguments have nothing
whatsoever to do with whether the above description applies to your

More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob
does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution.  As
everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be
needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such
testing in the 9.3 timeframe.  This problem needs to be attacked in
an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under
time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-03-26 15:00:11
Subject: Back-branch security updates coming next week
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2013-03-26 13:45:19
Subject: Re: pg_dump in current master segfaults when dumping 9.2/9.1 databases

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group