Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should we try to install some hack around fastupdate for 9.4? I fear
>> the divergence between reasonable values of work_mem and reasonable
>> sizes for that list is only going to continue to get bigger. I'm sure
>> there's somebody out there who has work_mem = 16GB, and stuff like
>> 263865a48973767ce8ed7b7788059a38a24a9f37 is only going to increase the
>> appeal of large values.
> Controlling the threshold of the size of pending list only by GUC doesn't
> seem reasonable. Users may want to increase the threshold only for the
> GIN index which can be updated heavily, and decrease it otherwise. So
> I think that it's better to add new storage parameter for GIN index to control
> the threshold, or both storage parameter and GUC.
Yeah, -1 for a GUC. A GIN-index-specific storage parameter seems more
appropriate. Or we could just hard-wire some maximum limit. Is it
really likely that users would trouble to set such a parameter if it
existed?
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
