Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA3A2E00A7 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:19:36 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15180-05-3 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:19:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00CF2E0040 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:18:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m5CNHWVZ015712; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:17:33 -0400 (EDT) To: Decibel! cc: Bruce Momjian , Andrew Dunstan , Greg Smith , Andreas Pflug , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Josh Berkus Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS In-reply-to: <5B69A1C5-6C65-4FD1-95C4-E73886AFA06D@decibel.org> References: <200806120234.m5C2YP324269@momjian.us> <5B69A1C5-6C65-4FD1-95C4-E73886AFA06D@decibel.org> Comments: In-reply-to Decibel! message dated "Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:18:46 -0500" Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:17:32 -0400 Message-ID: <15711.1213312652@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200806/585 X-Sequence-Number: 119698 Decibel! writes: > On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> I am kind of lost how this would work logically and am willing to >> think >> about it some more, but I do think we aren't going to simplify >> postgresql.conf without such a facility. > Agreed. And I think it's a lot more elegant for dealing with day-to- > day tuning than some kind of external wizzard. You guys call this "simplification"? You're out of your minds. This proposal is ridiculously complicated, and yet it still fails even to consider adjusting non-numeric parameters. And what about things that require more than a trivial arithmetic expression to compute? It's not hard at all to imagine wanting log, sqrt, etc. We do not need to put computational capability into GUC. Any computations needed to determine a parameter setting should be done by a wizard. regards, tom lane