Re: open items for 9.4

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Subject: Re: open items for 9.4
Date: 2014-09-30 05:24:02
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTr-Wv5K7MkXrU8a0X5QK6hdcw_1q2pG4rRX+rhW6JkJA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The items I see are:
>
> > - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!
>
> > The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> > point. I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
> > GUC, but if we're going to remove it it should probably happen before
> > beta3. It's going to be impossible to remove once we've released with
> > it, I suspect.
>
> The lack of any documentation for the GUC (neither in config.sgml or
> postgresql.conf.sample) suggests very very strongly that it was not
> meant to be shipped. If we don't remove it I will certainly insist
> that it be documented adequately.
>
> Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty. What's the
> argument that users will need to tune this at runtime?
>
I tend to go in this direction too. It is unclear how it is really able to
improve scalability, or at least some documentation should be here to help
users to set it. An additional thought as well: set it with a configure
switch at compilation instead of a GUC.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shay Rojansky 2014-09-30 05:24:51 Re: Proper query implementation for Postgresql driver
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2014-09-30 05:20:29 Re: Proper query implementation for Postgresql driver