| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Date: | 2000-01-28 16:01:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3891BD44.3296FAD7@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Independent of this, I thought numerous times (when similar "tuning"
> > issues came up) that it's time for a real unified configuration file,
> > which includes pg_options, the geqo what-not, an option for each of these
> > backend tuning options (join methods, fsync), heck maybe even the port
> > number and an alternative location for temp/sort files. Kind of put all
> > the administration in one place. Something to think about maybe.
> Added to TODO:
> * Unify configuration into one configuration file
... and that is a good example of database design because?? ;)
It may be the right thing to do, but I can see why an RDBMS project
would have trouble with the concept...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-28 16:59:39 | Re: AW: AW: [HACKERS] Some notes on optimizer cost estimates |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-01-28 15:57:50 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres under gdb |