Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only
>> know how to get that number on some platforms.
> I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not
> using it where we can't.
Because then we still need to define, and document, a sensible behavior
on the machines where we can't get it. And document that we do it two
different ways, and document which machines we do it which way on.
>> There's also the issue
>> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to
>> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales
>> itself to physical RAM.
> 10% isn't assuming dedicated.
Really?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
