Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2013-10-10 03:19:53
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTtt2+41YvuzpNpQ=ne=U5QtLb0pEZHcvcWXVNWrnzuzA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> My option is better, not perfect --- I don't know how many times I can
> say something again and again. Fortunately there are enough people who
> understand that on the lists.

+1 from me on the sentiment: the perfect cannot be allowed to be the
enemy of the good.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-10 03:20:35 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-10-10 03:15:44 Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem