From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:01:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4D314650.9010601@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D2F354F0200002500039510@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <AANLkTik3mZ3sTfbHQW-1B44NRMkUzRsMnPb8g-HtttVv@mail.gmail.com>
<4D2F354F0200002500039510@gw.wicourts.gov>
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I guess a manual override doesn't bother me too much, but I am a bit dubious of its
> value, and there is value in keeping the GUC count down...
It's a risk-reward thing really. The reward for removing it is that a
few lines of code and a small section of the documentation go away.
It's not very big. The risk seems low, but it's not zero. Let's say
this goes in, we get to 9.2 or later, and a survey suggests that no one
has needed to ever set wal_buffers when deploying 9.1. At that point I
think everyone would feel much better considering to nuke it
altogether. I just looked at the code again when developing the patch,
and there's really not enough benefit to removing it to worry about
taking any risk right now.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: greg@2ndquadrant.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
In-Reply-To: <4D314650.9010601@2ndquadrant.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox