On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2014-05-07 10:07:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > In the meantime, it seems like there is an emerging consensus that nobody > > much likes the existing auto-tuning behavior for effective_cache_size, > > and that we should revert that in favor of just increasing the fixed > > default value significantly. I see no problem with a value of say 4GB; > > that's very unlikely to be worse than the pre-9.4 default (128MB) on any > > modern machine. > > > > Votes for or against? > > +1 for increasing it to 4GB and remove the autotuning. I don't like the > current integration into guc.c much and a new static default doesn't > seem to be worse than the current autotuning. > +1. If we can't make the autotuning better than that, we're better off holding off on that one until we can actually figure out something better. (At which point perhaps we can reach the level where we can just remove it.. But that's all handwaving about the future of course). -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
