On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-05-07 10:07:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> In the meantime, it seems like there is an emerging consensus that nobody >> much likes the existing auto-tuning behavior for effective_cache_size, >> and that we should revert that in favor of just increasing the fixed >> default value significantly. I see no problem with a value of say 4GB; >> that's very unlikely to be worse than the pre-9.4 default (128MB) on any >> modern machine. >> >> Votes for or against? > > +1 for increasing it to 4GB and remove the autotuning. I don't like the > current integration into guc.c much and a new static default doesn't > seem to be worse than the current autotuning.
It was my proposal originally, so I assume I'd be counted as in favor, but for the sake of clarity: +1. -- 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
