| 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: | 4AE70EE7.10609@timbira.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
>> ALTER DATABASE SET.
>
> 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
http://www.timbira.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-27 15:22:48 | Re: Endgame for all those SELECT FOR UPDATE changes: fix plan node order |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-27 14:50:23 | FOR UPDATE versus WITH --- change 8.4 too? |