On 14 May 2012 15:09, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion > about that, and welcome discussion. But I'm always going to be > opposed to adding or removing things on the basis of what we didn't > test.
The subject of the thread is "Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings?". I don't believe that anyone asserted that we should remove the settings without some amount of due-diligence testing. Simon said that thorough testing on many types of hardware was not practical, which, considering that commit_delay is probably hardly ever (never?) used in production, I'd have to agree with. With all due respect, for someone that doesn't have a strong opinion on the efficacy of commit_delay in 9.2, you seemed to have a strong opinion on the standard that would have to be met in order to deprecate it. I think we all could stand to give each other the benefit of the doubt more. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
