From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Make ringbuffer threshold and ringbuffer sizes configurable? |
Date: | 2020-02-06 18:52:31 |
Message-ID: | 20200206185231.smqjaetllixsouuu@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-02-06 13:15:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 11:00 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > I.e. to maintain the current defaults, seqscan_ringbuffer_threshold
> > would be -4.0, but could be also be set to an absolute 4GB (converted to
> > pages). Probably would want a GUC show function that displays
> > proportional values in a nice way.
>
> I think this is kind of awkward given that our GUC system attributes
> units to everything.
I admit it's awkward. I think we possibly could still just make the size
displayed in bytes in either case, reducing that issue a *bit*?
> It'd sort of be nicer to have two separate GUCs,
> one measured as a multiple and the other measured in bytes, but maybe
> that's just exchanging one form of confusion for another.
We don't really have a good way to deal with GUCs where setting one
precludes the other, especially when those GUCs should be changable at
runtime :(.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-02-06 19:03:58 | Re: Make ringbuffer threshold and ringbuffer sizes configurable? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-06 18:48:42 | Re: In PG12, query with float calculations is slower than PG11 |