On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 02:07:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
> > I remember Informix had a setting that had no description except "try
> > different values to see if it helps performance" --- we don't want to do
> > that.
> >
> > What if we emit a server message if the setting is too low? That's how
> > we handle checkpoint_segments.
> >
> > Not all GUC need to be straight forward to tune.
> > If the gains are worthy I don't see any reason not to have it.
>
> Every GUC add complexity to the system because people have to understand
> it to know if they should tune it. No GUC is zero-cost.
Please see my blog post about the cost of adding GUCs:
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2009.html#January_10_2009
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
