On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 02:07:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote: > > > I remember Informix had a setting that had no description except > "try > > > different values to see if it helps performance" --- we don't want > to do > > > that. > > > > > > What if we emit a server message if the setting is too low? > That's how > > > we handle checkpoint_segments. > > > > > > Not all GUC need to be straight forward to tune. > > > If the gains are worthy I don't see any reason not to have it. > > > > Every GUC add complexity to the system because people have to understand > > it to know if they should tune it. No GUC is zero-cost. > > Please see my blog post about the cost of adding GUCs: > > http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2009.html#January_10_2009 > > -- > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + Everyone has their own god. + > That's true Bruce (nice post, it was a good reading). But how can we ignore 25%+ improvements (from 8 to 24)? At very least we should delivery some pretty good defaults.
