Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?
Date
Msg-id 5265.1237047923@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"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).

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.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Has anybody think about changing BLCKSZ to an option of initdb?
Next
From: decibel
Date:
Subject: Re: Prepping to break every past release...