Re: open items for 9.4 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: open items for 9.4
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqTr-Wv5K7MkXrU8a0X5QK6hdcw_1q2pG4rRX+rhW6JkJA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: open items for 9.4  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> The items I see are:

> - Remove xloginsert_slots/xloginsert_locks GUC - Not yet!!

> The text seems to indicate that there's some disagreement on this
> point.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not to keep the
> GUC, but if we're going to remove it it should probably happen before
> beta3.  It's going to be impossible to remove once we've released with
> it, I suspect.

The lack of any documentation for the GUC (neither in config.sgml or
postgresql.conf.sample) suggests very very strongly that it was not
meant to be shipped.  If we don't remove it I will certainly insist
that it be documented adequately.

Personally I think a hardwired #define should be plenty.  What's the
argument that users will need to tune this at runtime?
I tend to go in this direction too. It is unclear how it is really able to improve scalability, or at least some documentation should be here to help users to set it. An additional thought as well: set it with a configure switch at compilation instead of a GUC.
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Proper query implementation for Postgresql driver
Next
From: Shay Rojansky
Date:
Subject: Re: Proper query implementation for Postgresql driver