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

Re: Overhauling GUCS

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)sun(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: 2008-06-02 18:06:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Like some of the other GUC simplification ideas that show up sometimes
> (unifying all I/O and limiting background processes based on that total
> is another), this is hard to do internally.  Josh's proposal has a fair
> amount of work involved, but the code itself doesn't need to be clever
> or too intrusive.  Unifying all the memory settings would require being
> both clever and intrusive, and I doubt you'll find anybody who could
> pull it off who isn't already overtasked with more important
> improvements for the 8.4 timeframe.

Plus, I'm a big fan of "enable an API" rather than "write a feature".  I 
think that there are people & companies out there who can write better 
autotuning tools than I can, and I'd rather give them a place to plug 
those tools in than trying to write autotuning into the postmaster.


Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-06-02 18:08:55
Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-06-02 17:56:32
Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group