Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0106231802400.724-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Would you suggest that we have no default at all, and make users pick
> something?

No.  I'm concerned that PostgreSQL should work out of the box for
everyone.  And I would prefer that PostgreSQL works the same on every
platform out of the box.  Obviously we've already lost this on systems
where the default shmmax is 512kB (SCO OpenServer, Unixware) or 1 MB
(Solaris), and reducing the parameters is clearly not an option.  But if a
plurality of systems have the default set at 4 MB or 8 MB then we should
stop there so we don't upset a large fraction of users.

Btw., do we have any data on how appropriate wal_buffers = 8 is?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Olivier PRENANT
Date:
Subject: Re: psql+openssl+uniware7
Next
From: "Joe Conway"
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards