On 9/21/16 8:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Oh, I'm on board with increasing the default size a bit. A different
>> > default size isn't a non-default compile time option anymore though, and
>> > I don't think 1GB is a reasonable default.
> But that's not the question. What Peter said was: "maybe we should at
> least *allow* some larger sizes, for testing out". I see very little
> merit in restricting the values that people can set via configure.
> That just makes life difficult. If a user picks a setting that
> doesn't perform well, oops.
Right. If we think that a larger size can have some performance benefit
and we think that 64MB might be a good new default (as was the initial
suggestion), then we should surely allow at least say 128 and 256 to be
tried out.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
