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

Re: CLOG contention

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CLOG contention
Date: 2012-01-06 16:50:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Please can we either make it user configurable?
> Weren't you just complaining that *I* was overcomplicating things?
> I see no evidence to justify inventing a user-visible GUC here.
> We have rough consensus on both the need for and the shape of a formula,
> with just minor discussion about the exact parameters to plug into it.
> Punting the problem off to a GUC is not a better answer.

As long as we get 32 buffers on big systems, I have no complaint.

I'm sorry if I moaned at you personally.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-01-06 17:10:09
Subject: Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-06 16:37:25
Subject: Re: Poorly thought out code in vacuum

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