Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to > >> justify the overhead of a GUC variable. > > > True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature? > > Seems they would have to. > > How you figure that? The proposed default value was 4, which seems > fine to me, given that the known worldwide demand amounts to 1.
Oh, so you are going to give him a few slots. I thought we were going to default to 0 and he was going to have to bump it up to use his software. That sounds fine to me. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
