"Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: > On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 13:53 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:29:43PM +0000, Greg Stark wrote: >> > The main advantage would be for circumstances such as the Windows >> > installer where users are installing precompiled binaries. They don't >> > get an opportunity to choose the block size at all. (Similarly for >> > users of binary-only commercial products such as EDB's but the Windows >> > installer makes a pretty good argument on its own). >> >> And all the linux distributions which ship precompiled binaries. I'm >> sure there are people who compile postgres themselves but I think there >> are more who don't. > > I think that is an understatement. I would say 99% of postgresql users > do NOT compile from source. Heck the only time I compile from source is > when I need to fix mis-configured defaults in RH packages (which is why > we now have rpms that fix those defaults) or when we have back patched > something for a customer.
So has anyone here done any experiments with live systems with different block sizes? What were your experiences? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
