Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
>> 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.
In particular, the cost of putting this one back would be documenting
what it does and how to tune it. As mentioned upthread, we're not
following that Informix precedent ;-)
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
