Re: Postgres 8.3 archive_command

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Rudolf van der Leeden <vanderleeden(at)logicunited(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.3 archive_command
Date: 2007-11-22 15:39:44
Message-ID: 7843.1195745984@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 10:34 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
>> On further reflection I think that initdb time is probably sufficient.
>> Do you think that would be a reasonable TODO ?

> I think you'd have to explain why this was needed. It was useful for
> performance once, but not anymore.

Yeah, some demonstration that choosing another size is actually useful
would be a good idea before we go to the trouble of making it runtime
configurable. It's already build-time configurable, and I'm not
convinced that that's not sufficient.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2007-11-22 15:59:09 Re: Fix pg_dump dependency on postgres.h
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-11-22 15:37:12 Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load