>>> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Ron Mayer wrote: > >> OTOH there tends to be less DBA time available to tune the smaller demo >> instances that come&go as sales people upgrade their laptops; so >> improved automation would be much appreciated there. > > I have a TODO list for things that might be interesting to add to a V2.0 > version of this tool. I just added an item to there for extending the > tuning model usefully into working on systems with smaller amounts of RAM. > I'm not opposed to the idea, just don't have any background doing that and > I'm trying to stay focused on the more common big-machine problems for the > first release. I think there needs to be some easy way to choose an option which yields a configuration similar to what we've had in recent production releases -- something that will start up and allow minimal testing on even a small machine. It also occurred to me that if initdb is generating its initial configuration with this, some special handling might be needed for the "make check" runs. It isn't unusual to want to do a build and check it on a production server. If the generated configuration used in regression tests is assuming it "owns the machine" there could be a problem. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
