| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Date: | 2008-06-06 15:55:21 |
| Message-ID: | 48495DE9.9040409@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> - If we know better values, why don't we set them by default?
>> The problem is: better for what? In particular, I'm uncomfortable with
>> any changes in the direction of trying to make Postgres take over the
>> entire machine by default. I'd want some fairly explicit permission
>> from the user for that ...
>
> Yes, those are decisions we are going to have to make, eventually. But recall
> the three step process:
>
> 1. What values need changing?
shared_buffers
work_mem
maintenance_work_mem
checkpoint_segments
wal_sync_method
effective_cache_size
> I haven't seen a proposal for item 1 yet, so the rest is idle discussion at
> this time.
I think those cover the biggest low hanging fruit, async_commit is arguable.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-06-06 15:59:09 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-06-06 15:50:54 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |