On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> How do we handle the Python dependency, or is this all to be done in >> some other language? I certainly am not ready to take on that job. > > I should think it possible to reimplement it in C. It was considerably > useful to start by implementing in Python, as that evades various sorts > of efforts needed in C (e.g. - memory allocation, picking a hash table > implementation), and allows someone to hack on it without needing to > run through a recompile every time something is touched.
Also, the last time I saw that tool, it output recommendations for work_mem that I would never, ever recommend to anyone on a production server - they were VERY high. More generally, Josh has made repeated comments that various proposed value/formulas for work_mem are too low, but obviously the people who suggested them didn't think so. So I'm a bit concerned that we don't all agree on what the end goal of this activity looks like. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
