Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> If we could do that on *all* platforms, I might be for it, but we only >> know how to get that number on some platforms.
> I don't see what's wrong with using it where we can get it, and not > using it where we can't. Because then we still need to define, and document, a sensible behavior on the machines where we can't get it. And document that we do it two different ways, and document which machines we do it which way on. >> There's also the issue >> of whether we really want to assume that the machine is dedicated to >> Postgres, which IMO is an implicit assumption of any default that scales >> itself to physical RAM. > 10% isn't assuming dedicated. Really? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers