Re: Doc patch making firm recommendation for setting the value of commit_delay

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Peter Geoghegan *EXTERN* <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Doc patch making firm recommendation for setting the value of commit_delay
Date: 2012-11-15 09:10:51
Message-ID: 50A4B19B.5030908@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/15/2012 04:56 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> I would rather see this just turn into one of the things a more
> general tuning tool knew how to do, executing against a fully setup
> system. Having a useful implementation of commit_delay and useful docs
> on it seems like enough of a jump forward for one release. Moving
> fully into auto-tuning before getting more field feedback on how that
> works out is pretty aggressive.
>

It'll also potentially make it harder to get reproducible results in
benchmarking and testing across repeated runs, cause confusion when
someone relocates a DB or changes hardware, and slow down initdb (and
thus testing).

I'd be all for making it part of a "test my hardware and tune my DB"
tool, but not such a fan of doing it at initdb time. Making initdb less
predictable and more complicated sounds like asking for trouble.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2012-11-15 09:34:45 Re: logical changeset generation v3
Previous Message Greg Smith 2012-11-15 08:56:56 Re: Doc patch making firm recommendation for setting the value of commit_delay