(2014/10/08 22:51), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this setting.
Wouldn't it be easy-to-use to have only one parameter,
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE? How about setting PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE
to
work_mem as the default value when running the CREATE INDEX command?
So what about introduing pending_list_cleanup_size also as GUC?
That is, users can set the threshold by using either the reloption or
GUC.
Yes, I think having both a GUC and a reloption makes sense -- the GUC
applies to all indexes, and can be tweaked for individual indexes using
the reloption.
OK, I'd vote for your idea of having both the GUC and the reloption. So, I
think the patch needs to be updated. Fujii-san, what plan do you have about
the patch?
Please see the attached patch. In this patch, I introduced the GUC parameter,
pending_list_cleanup_size. I chose 4MB as the default value of the parameter.
But do you have any better idea about that default value?
It seems reasonable to me that the GUC has the same default value as
work_mem. So, +1 for the default value of 4MB.
BTW, I moved the CommitFest entry of this patch to next CF 2014-10.
OK, I'll review the patch in the CF.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
