Message-ID: <48495DE9.9040409@commandprompt.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:55:21 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>,
	"Decibel!" <decibel@decibel.org>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
References: <48409D1E.3070208@agliodbs.com>
	<200806061435.01196.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<1669.1212765410@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200806061750.55582.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200806061750.55582.peter_e@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Juni 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>> - If we know better values, why don't we set them by default?
>> The problem is: better for what?  In particular, I'm uncomfortable with
>> any changes in the direction of trying to make Postgres take over the
>> entire machine by default.  I'd want some fairly explicit permission
>> from the user for that ...
> 
> Yes, those are decisions we are going to have to make, eventually.  But recall 
> the three step process:
> 
> 1. What values need changing?

shared_buffers
work_mem
maintenance_work_mem
checkpoint_segments
wal_sync_method
effective_cache_size

> I haven't seen a proposal for item 1 yet, so the rest is idle discussion at 
> this time.

I think those cover the biggest low hanging fruit, async_commit is arguable.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake