Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote: >> 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. In particular, the cost of putting this one back would be documenting what it does and how to tune it. As mentioned upthread, we're not following that Informix precedent ;-) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers