From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, CM Team <cm(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: buildfarm failures on smew and anole |
Date: | 2013-10-16 13:47:45 |
Message-ID: | 20131016134745.GG5319@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-16 09:44:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2013-10-16 09:35:46 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Gah. I fixed one instance of that problem in test_config_settings(),
> >> but missed the other.
> >
> > Maybe it'd be better to default to none, just as max_connections
> > defaults to 1 and shared_buffers to 16? As we write out the value in the
> > config file, everything should still continue to work.
>
> Hmm, possibly. But how would we document that? It seems strange to
> say that the default is none, but the actual setting probably won't be
> none on your system because we hack up postgresql.conf.
> shared_buffers pretty much just glosses over the distinction between
> "default" and "what you probably have configured", but I'm not sure
> that's actually great policy.
I can't remember somebody actually being confused by that with s_b or
max_connections. So maybe it's just ok not to document it. But yes, I
can't come up with a succinct description of that behaviour either.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-16 13:51:44 | Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-16 13:44:32 | Re: buildfarm failures on smew and anole |