Re: [PATCHES] Another POC initdb patch

2003-07-06 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Sunday 06 July 2003 20:55, Tom Lane wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In addition to Tom's patch, this patch asks tuning parameters right away, > > while doing initdb. > > Sorry, there is zero chance of putting any interactivity into initdb. > Most RPM installations ru

Re: [PATCHES] Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

2003-07-06 Thread Tom Lane
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should the default max number of connections first try something greater > than what Apache sets by default (256 for prefork, 400 for worker)? We could do that. I'm a little worried about setting default values that are likely to cause problems with e

Re: [PATCHES] Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

2003-07-06 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 15:29:37 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3. What should be the set of tested values? I have it as >buffers: first to work of 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 50 >connections: first to work of 100 50 40 30 20 10 > but we could certainly argu

Re: [PATCHES] Autoconf test for incompatible version of flex

2003-07-06 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I inquired about this problem elsewhere, it's not a bug, it's an API change. > > Until postgres "ports" to the new API it won't work with newer versions of > > Flex. > > If their intent was to break things, why wa

Re: [PATCHES] Another POC initdb patch

2003-07-06 Thread Tom Lane
Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In addition to Tom's patch, this patch asks tuning parameters right away, > while doing initdb. Sorry, there is zero chance of putting any interactivity into initdb. Most RPM installations run it from the RPM install script and would be unable to

[PATCHES] Another POC initdb patch

2003-07-06 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
Hi all, In addition to Tom's patch, this patch asks tuning parameters right away, while doing initdb. I have also changed the notice displayed after initdb is done. Just an attempt to make defaults user friendly. I would also like to add other paramters to this approach, like fsync and random_

[PATCHES] ruleutils with pretty-print option

2003-07-06 Thread Andreas Pflug
Is there a problem about the archive? I posted this addition to the patch on July 2, and received it over the patches mailing list. Still, it doesn't appear in cvs, in "unapplied patches" or in the mailing list archive! So although that message made its way through the list server, it didn't end