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

Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
Date: 2009-10-26 23:47:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
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 HerreraDate: 2009-10-26 23:52:53
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-26 23:42:39
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

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