| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue with gininsert under very high load |
| Date: | 2014-02-12 20:06:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20140212200635.GA2921@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Andres Freund (andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> There's previously been talk about changing the limits to something more
> reasonable but it got stalled in bikeshedding IIRC.
As I recall, there was argument that we didn't really need a new GUC for
this (which was the proposal) but rather just need to pick a reasonable
(small) value and hard-code it. Are there objections to doing so, or
are there cases where that would be a serious problem? How do people
feel about 4MB?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-12 20:28:06 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-12 19:55:17 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |