[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> I guess my point is, if the patch looks good and does not appear
>>> to hurt anything, why not apply it? At least that way we can start
>>> to review the progress of the feature itself as it starts to see
>>> use.
>> Yeah, you mean like commit_delay.  It really worked great, that
>> reviewing of a feature, you know.  It only took 3 years until
>> someone realized that it didn't work as advertised.
> You can not compare the relevant smallness of use from three years
> ago to the explosion of use at present. It is certainly unfortunate
> that commit_delay didn't work as advertised, but then again had we
> not applied it, we would have never known in the first place and now
> we have the opportunity to fix or remove it.
> You can compare other such features that many people don't touch
> that are starting to show promise over time such as cpu_tuple_cost.

I'd like to see a bit more available for the TOAST threshold, even if
only a little bit of documentation to make it an unscary thing to
modify the threshold so that I could recommend that our DBAs modify
it, and *not* have them get all hinky at the fact that I'm telling
them to touch the sources.

  "Yes, I'm telling you to modify the sources.  It's a safe
   modification - see?  The documentation says so!"

Without this, I'll have to fight some ghastly uphill battle in order
to get this set in our builds, and I *don't* want to wait until 8.4 to
see our ~900 byte long XML values TOASTed.

I'd be happy to help make the patch.
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: 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

Reply via email to