On 26 March 2013 14:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> So please, lets go with a simple solution now that allows users to say >> what they want. > > Simon, this is just empty posturing, as your arguments have nothing > whatsoever to do with whether the above description applies to your > patch.
Waiting for an auto-tuned solution to *every* problem means we just sit and watch bad things happen, knowing how to fix them for particular cases yet not being able to do anything at all. > More generally, the fact that a patch has some user-frobbable knob > does not mean that it's actually a good or even usable solution. As > everybody keeps saying, testing on a wide range of use-cases would be > needed to prove that, and we don't have enough time left for such > testing in the 9.3 timeframe. This problem needs to be attacked in > an organized and deliberate fashion, not by hacking something up under > time pressure and shipping it with minimal testing. Well, it has been tackled like that and we've *all* got nowhere. No worries, I can wait a year for that beer. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
