"--tuning" compile and runtime option (?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Justin Clift
Subject "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)
Date
Msg-id 3AD1117E.2AE4147A@iprimus.com.au
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi guys,

Just thinking about the future directions PostgreSQL is taking, and it
seems (just a feeling) like most people prefer it to be as self tuning
as possible.

In trying to think about how it will/would do that I think PostgreSQL
will need to know "how much" of the resources of the server its on, it's
allowed to take.

Can think of three scenario's, 1) Single-purpose PostgreSQL server 2)
shared function server (i.e. Apache, Postgres, etc on the same box) 3)
Embedded or otherwise resource limited server (Palmtop, etc).

When we get around to PostgreSQL's self-tuning ability being actively
developed (and I think Bruce has done some of the very start with his
monitor program), perhaps having a compile time option to set the
default for the server, and a runtime option in case it changes?

i.e.

--tuning=superserver
--tuning=shared
--tuning=embedded

postmaster -t superserver
postmaster -t shared
postmaster -t embedded

What do people think?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

P.S. - I'm not on the Hackers mailing list from this account.  Can
anyone responding please include me directly in their replies?

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."    - Indira Gandhi


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nat Irons
Date:
Subject: Yellow Dog Linux/PPC regression
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: "--tuning" compile and runtime option (?)