On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:20:31AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2007 at 10:31 PM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -There are two magic constants in the code: > > > > int smoothing_samples = 16; > > float scan_whole_pool_seconds = 120.0; > > > > > I personally > > don't feel like these constants need to be exposed for tuning purposes; > > > Determining > > whether these should be exposed as GUC tunables is certainly an open > > question though. > > If you exposed the scan_whole_pool_seconds as a tunable GUC, that would > allay all of my concerns about this patch. Basically, our problems were
I like the idea of not having that as a GUC, but I'm doubtful that it can be hard-coded like that. What if checkpoint_timeout is set to 120? Or 60? Or 2000? I don't know that there should be a direct correlation, but ISTM that scan_whole_pool_seconds should take checkpoint intervals into account somehow. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
pgpiBGkQouND3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
