On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 12:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> ... Aside from the implementation costs of making > >> it variable, there is the oft repeated refrain that Postgres has too > >> many configuration knobs already. > > > Well that "too many knobs" argument doesn't apply to this scenario etc. > > Anyone who is making use of these need those knobs. > > That's nonsense --- on that argument, any variable no matter how obscure > should be exposed as a tunable because there might be somebody somewhere > who could benefit from it. You are ignoring the costs to everybody else > who don't need it, but still have to study a GUC variable definition and > try to figure out whether it needs changing for their usage. Not to > mention the people who set it to a bad value and suffer lost performance > as a result (cf vacuum_cost_delay).
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't actually arguing for the variable. I was arguing that if the variable was required that those are the people that would need it. I frankly don't see a need for this variable but again, I think that the performance lab would be provide the information we need to make such a determination. > Note that I am not saying "no", I am saying "give us some evidence > *first*". The costs in implementation effort and user confusion are > certain, the benefits are not. I do not disagree with this. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
