Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh, is any of this happening for 8.3?

Should I run with this or let it lay?

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> All,
>> I'm working on cleaning up postgresql.conf and pg_settings for the 
>> release.  Attached is a sample WIP.  It's not in patch form because I'm 
>> not done yet; I've just been editing postgresql.conf and need to fix the 
>> docs and pg_settings to match.
>> Issues encountered and changes made:
>> PostgreSQL.conf
>> ----------------
>> suggestions: added section with the 7 most important obvious settings at 
>> the top and suggestions on how to calculate them.  If people like this, 
>> I'll add it to the Tutorial in the docs as well.
>> seq_scan_cost: this is independant of all of the other _costs.  I can't 
>> think of any way in which that doesn't make the whole set of costs 
>> unmanageable.  For example, if you want to change seq_scan_cost in order 
>> to make query cost more-or-less match up with ms execution time, you 
>> have to modify all 6 settings.   If we do implement per-tablespace 
>> costs, then we'll need per-tablespace random_page_cost as well.  Or am I 
>> missing something?
>> (change requires restart): this phrase appears over 20 times in the 
>> notes.  This is enough times to be really repetitive and take up a lot 
>> of scrolling space, while not actually covering all startup-time 
>> parameters.  We should either (a) remove all such notes and rely on 
>> docs, or (b) make an annotation symbol (e.g. *R) and mark 100% of them. 
>>   Votes?
>> Vacuum: all vacuum & autovacuum parameters put under their own section.
>> Client Cost Defaults: this section became a "catch-all" for all userset 
>> parameters which people weren't sure what to do with.  I've divided it 
>> into logical subsections, and moved some parameters to other sections 
>> where they logically belong (for example, explain_pretty_print belongs 
>> in Query Tuning).
>> pg_settings issues
>> --------------------
>> transaction_isolation and transaction_read_only appear more than once in 
>> the pg_settings pseudo_table.   The setting column is supposed to be unique.
>> Given the amount of cleanup/improvement which I'm seeing as necessary 
>> for the GUCs, I'm wondering if I put this off too long for 8.3.
>> --Josh
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
                        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to