From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after |
Date: | 2016-11-25 15:40:10 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1611251624030.18480@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tomas,
>>> While the 9.6 cat is out of the bag, I think we can fix this quite
>>> easily - use "-1" to specify the default value should be used, and use
>>> that in the sample file. This won't break any user configuration.
>>
>> Although I understand the issue, I'm not sure about -1 as a special
>> value to mean the default.
>
> Why? We use wal_buffers=-1 to use the default (depending on the size of
> shared_buffers), for example.
Indeed. Just my 0.02€:
ISTM that the use of -1 is not very consistent, as it may mean:
- default: autovacuum_work_mem, wal_buffers
- disable: temp_file_limit, old_snapshot_limit,
max_standby_*_delay, log_min_duration_statement
And sometimes disable is the default, but not always:-) Basically I'm not
sure that adding some more confusion around that helps much...
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-11-25 16:22:45 | Re: confusing checkpoint_flush_after / bgwriter_flush_after |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-11-25 14:35:16 | Re: UNDO and in-place update |