Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP)
Date
Msg-id 4D996E14020000250003C1C7@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas  wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Tom Lane  wrote:
>> It would probably take less than a day to flesh out this idea and
>> make it happen, but it does seem like a rather large change for
>> late alpha.
> what we're trying to avoid is committing new stuff that may require
> additional cleanup, not cleaning up the stuff we already did
> commit. Once we get to beta I'll be less enthusiastic about making
> changes like this
+1 for fixing it, with full agreement with Robert's project
management perspective on the issue.
Having worked in this area a bit I definitely see the need in
general, and for auto-tuning we pretty much have to do this to get it
right.  I think we should be edging into more auto-tuning
capabilities as we figure them out, making this all the more
important.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: q-gram GIN and GiST indexes
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Process local hint bit cache