On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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
> > > 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:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
> + Everyone has their own god. +
That's true Bruce (nice post, it was a good reading).
But how can we ignore 25%+ improvements (from 8 to 24)?
At very least we should delivery some pretty good defaults.