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

Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
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>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost
Date: 2009-10-27 15:16:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> 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
> Well, not exactly like ALTER DATABASE SET because those are now stored
> in pg_db_role_setting.  But a new spcoptions column storing an array of
> key/value pairs seems a reasonable way to do it.
+1. That's what I have in mind too.

  Euler Taveira de Oliveira

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-27 15:22:48
Subject: Re: Endgame for all those SELECT FOR UPDATE changes: fix plan node order
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-10-27 14:50:23
Subject: FOR UPDATE versus WITH --- change 8.4 too?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group