Re: Overhauling GUCS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jignesh K. Shah
Subject Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date
Msg-id 484418D9.5040608@sun.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Overhauling GUCS  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Overhauling GUCS  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Overhauling GUCS  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Some other problems I see with GUCs
>
> * It's not possible to set one parameter depending upon the setting of
> another.
>   

To me this is more critical.. Most people I have seen will increase one 
or few but not all parameters related to memory which can result in loss 
of performance and productivity in figuring out.

What happened to AvailRAM setting and base all memory gucs on that.  
Ideally PostgreSQL should only create one big memory pool and allow all 
other variables to change runtime via dba or some tuner process or 
customized application as long as total is less than the allocated 
shared_memory and local_memory settings. (This will also reduce the need 
of restarting Postgres if a value needs to be changed)



-Jignesh

> * It's always unclear which GUCs can be changed, and when. That is much
> more infrequently understood than the meaning of them.
>
> * We should rename effective_cache_size to something that doesn't sound
> like it does what shared_buffers does
>
> * There is no config verification utility, so if you make a change and
> then try to restart and it won't, you are in trouble.
>
>   


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Case-Insensitve Text Comparison
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Proposal: new function array_init