On 9/21/16 8:12 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Oh, I'm on board with increasing the default size a bit. A different >> > default size isn't a non-default compile time option anymore though, and >> > I don't think 1GB is a reasonable default. > But that's not the question. What Peter said was: "maybe we should at > least *allow* some larger sizes, for testing out". I see very little > merit in restricting the values that people can set via configure. > That just makes life difficult. If a user picks a setting that > doesn't perform well, oops.
Advertising
Right. If we think that a larger size can have some performance benefit and we think that 64MB might be a good new default (as was the initial suggestion), then we should surely allow at least say 128 and 256 to be tried out. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
