Re: zheap storage_engine parameter, shouldn't this raise an error?

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Westermann <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: zheap storage_engine parameter, shouldn't this raise an error?
Date: 2018-11-03 09:55:19
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JF-0ufA0e3ssG2vs1a5YvuDnWnBexj1v_K2WF2Q3xBNA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 3:13 PM Daniel Westermann <daniel(dot)westermann(at)dbi-services(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I believe this should raise an error or at least a warning?
>>
>
> Sure, if we want we can raise the error or warning for this, but this is a parameter mainly to test zheap with existing set of regression tests. I am not sure if we want to keep it or even if we want to have any such parameter for testing purpose in what form it will be present. So, adding more checks at this stage around this parameter doesn't seem advisable to me.
>

Instead of starting new threads for each report, it might be better to
report it on the zheap thread [1].

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BYtM5vxzSM2NZm%2BpC37MCwyvtkmJrO_yRBQeZDp9Wa2w%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2018-11-03 10:16:30 Re: pgbench doc fix
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-11-03 09:51:48 Re: zheap storage_engine parameter, shouldn't this raise an error?