On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 12:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 11:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... Aside from the implementation costs of making
> >> it variable, there is the oft repeated refrain that Postgres has too
> >> many configuration knobs already.
>
> > Well that "too many knobs" argument doesn't apply to this scenario etc.
> > Anyone who is making use of these need those knobs.
>
> That's nonsense --- on that argument, any variable no matter how obscure
> should be exposed as a tunable because there might be somebody somewhere
> who could benefit from it. You are ignoring the costs to everybody else
> who don't need it, but still have to study a GUC variable definition and
> try to figure out whether it needs changing for their usage. Not to
> mention the people who set it to a bad value and suffer lost performance
> as a result (cf vacuum_cost_delay).
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't actually arguing for the
variable. I was arguing that if the variable was required that those are
the people that would need it. I frankly don't see a need for this
variable but again, I think that the performance lab would be provide
the information we need to make such a determination.
> Note that I am not saying "no", I am saying "give us some evidence
> *first*". The costs in implementation effort and user confusion are
> certain, the benefits are not.
I do not disagree with this.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 -
http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
