On 04/10/14 11:21, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-03 18:16:28 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:13:00AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
Do we really want to expose a setting a few of us _might_ ask customers
to change?
They also will try that themselves. Our customers aren't a horde of dumb
people. Some of them are willing to try things if they hit scalability
problesm. And *lots* of people hit scalability problems with
postgres. In fact I've seen big users migrate away from postgres because
of them.
And it's not like this only affects absurd cases. Even a parallel
restore will benefit.
I disagree. I just don't see the value in having such undefined
variables.
"undefined variables"? I'm not arguing that we don't need documentation
for it. Obviously we'd need that. I'm arguing against taking away
significant scalability possibilities from our users. My bet is that
it's more than 50% on a bigger machine.
I don't think we can offer absolutely accurate tuning advice, but I'm
sure we can give some guidance. Let me try.
+1
I think it is ok to document our reason for providing the new GUC -
along with that fact that it is a new one and we need more field testing
and benchmarks to provide comprehensive advice about how to set - and
recommend leaving it alone unless consult with experts/this list etc.
Regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
