On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 07:39:25PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > I do not disagree with you fundamentally here: this *is* worth > refining further, for sure, and the gains might be even greater if > that keeps going. My guess is just that the Postgres community > would not get a net benefit chasing that as a GUC in 9.4, not by the > time you try to account for all the future overhead and risk that > adds to the release. That was Heikki's gut feel on this when he > yanked it out already; I was mainly trying to do sanity checking on > that. You've made a good case that wasn't the ideal answer. Even > with that new data, I still don't think it was a outright bad > decision though--especially not in an October where there's no new > version out yet. This thread spun out of Open Items, and cutting > complexity should be the preferred direction for everything left on > there now.
Agreeed. Also, reality check --- we can't change postgresql.conf easily without an initdb, and I think our last 9.4 initdb is going to be 9.4beta3, which is going to be packaged on Monday. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
