Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4
Date: 2014-10-03 18:42:24
Message-ID: 6816.1412361744@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
>> Not all GUC need to be straight forward to tune.
>> If the gains are worthy I don't see any reason not to have it.

> Every GUC add complexity to the system because people have to understand
> it to know if they should tune it. No GUC is zero-cost.

In particular, the cost of putting this one back would be documenting
what it does and how to tune it. As mentioned upthread, we're not
following that Informix precedent ;-)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-03 18:42:29 Re: Fixed xloginsert_locks for 9.4
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2014-10-03 18:39:11 Re: Dynamic LWLock tracing via pg_stat_lwlock (proof of concept)