Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Jeff Janes writes: >> > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. >> > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf >> > (at least) needs to be updated. >> >> I

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. > > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf > > (at least) needs to be updated. > > It looks like the problem is that the new range check > > + /*

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes writes: > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf > (at least) needs to be updated. It looks like the problem is that the new range check + /* This range check shouldn't fail

[HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Jeff Janes
commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf (at least) needs to be updated. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscri