Re: open items for 9.4

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2014-09-29 18:28:07
Message-ID: 5429A4B7.303@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09/29/2014 08:53 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> - 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.
> I vote for keeping it.

Time for me to put on my "we have too many darned GUCs" curmudgeon hat.

1. What does it do?
2. Are there reasons why users would want to change it from the default?
3. Can we explain those reasons in the form of documentation?

IMHO, if the answers to 2 or 3 are "no", then we shouldn't have a GUC.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-29 18:29:49 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-09-29 18:15:31 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}