Re: Maximum reasonable bgwriter_delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Maximum reasonable bgwriter_delay
Date
Msg-id 8506.1182321237@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Maximum reasonable bgwriter_delay  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> I can't think of any good reason why the bgwriter_delay can't be reduced 
> to 1s if that simplifies things.

The simplification Heikki suggests would save a grand total of 9 lines
of C code, two of which are braces.  Is it really worth it to make such
stringent assumptions about what the parameter is good for?

(Having a GUC parameter at all costs more lines than that, not even
counting its documentation.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Maximum reasonable bgwriter_delay
Next
From: toronto programmer
Date:
Subject: Suggestion for Enum Support Functions