Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> o everyone agrees the current meaning of bgwriter_percent is
> useless (percent of dirty buffers)
Oh?
It's not useless by any means; it's a perfectly reasonable and useful
definition that happens to be expensive to implement. One of the
questions that is not answered to my satisfaction is what is an adequate
substitute that doesn't lose needed functionality.
> o bgwriter_percent and bgwriter_maxpages are duplicate for a
> given number of buffers and it isn't clear which one takes
> precedence.
Not unless the current definition of bgwriter_percent is changed.
Please try to make sure that your summaries reduce confusion instead
of increasing it.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
