Re: Overhauling GUCS

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: 2008-06-06 15:55:21
Message-ID: 48495DE9.9040409@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> - If we know better values, why don't we set them by default?
>> The problem is: better for what? In particular, I'm uncomfortable with
>> any changes in the direction of trying to make Postgres take over the
>> entire machine by default. I'd want some fairly explicit permission
>> from the user for that ...
>
> Yes, those are decisions we are going to have to make, eventually. But recall
> the three step process:
>
> 1. What values need changing?

shared_buffers
work_mem
maintenance_work_mem
checkpoint_segments
wal_sync_method
effective_cache_size

> I haven't seen a proposal for item 1 yet, so the rest is idle discussion at
> this time.

I think those cover the biggest low hanging fruit, async_commit is arguable.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-06-06 15:59:09 Re: Overhauling GUCS
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2008-06-06 15:50:54 Re: Overhauling GUCS