From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:06:04 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@sun.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com> <484418D9.5040608@sun.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0806021227100.4018@westnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0806021227100.4018@westnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200806021106.05833.josh@agliodbs.com>

Greg,

> Like some of the other GUC simplification ideas that show up sometimes
> (unifying all I/O and limiting background processes based on that total
> is another), this is hard to do internally. =A0Josh's proposal has a fair
> amount of work involved, but the code itself doesn't need to be clever
> or too intrusive. =A0Unifying all the memory settings would require being
> both clever and intrusive, and I doubt you'll find anybody who could
> pull it off who isn't already overtasked with more important
> improvements for the 8.4 timeframe.

Plus, I'm a big fan of "enable an API" rather than "write a feature".  I=20
think that there are people & companies out there who can write better=20
autotuning tools than I can, and I'd rather give them a place to plug=20
those tools in than trying to write autotuning into the postmaster.

=2D-=20
=2D-Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco