On Tuesday 27 October 2009 00:42:39 Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Still far from convinced on that one. But effective_io_concurrency
> > should be included even in the first pass.
> I think a design that is limited to a prespecified set of GUCs is
> broken by definition. It'd be better to make it work like
> ALTER DATABASE SET.
How should that work if there are conflicting settings in two tablespaces when
tables from both are used?
Some settings make sense per tablespace, but I dont see a valid model to
accept e.g. 'standard_conforming_strings' set to 'off' in one and 'on' in the
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-10-26 23:52:53|
|Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-10-26 23:42:39|
|Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost |