From: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds |
Date: | 2017-04-08 09:43:13 |
Message-ID: | d8jr313s09a.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Unfortunately, I was unable to get the follow-on patch to allow
> setting by relation into a shape I liked. Let's see what we can do
> for the next release.
Okay, I'll try and crete a more comprehensive version of it for the next
commitfest.
> The first patch was applied with only very minor tweaks.
Thanks!
> I realize that nothing would break if individual users could set their
> granularity thresholds on individual connections, but as someone who
> has filled the role of DBA, the thought kinda made my skin crawl. I
> left it as PGC_SIGHUP for now; we can talk about loosening that up
> later, but I think we should have one or more use-cases that outweigh
> the opportunities for confusion and bad choices by individual
> programmers to justify that.
I agree. The committed version is fine for my current use case.
- ilmari
--
"A disappointingly low fraction of the human race is,
at any given time, on fire." - Stig Sandbeck Mathisen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-04-08 10:25:28 | Re: Undefined psql variables |
Previous Message | Andrew Gierth | 2017-04-08 07:57:04 | Re: [sqlsmith] Planner crash on foreign table join |