Message-ID: <4D314650.9010601@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:01:36 -0500
From: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
CC: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers
References: <AANLkTik3mZ3sTfbHQW-1B44NRMkUzRsMnPb8g-HtttVv@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D2F354F0200002500039510@gw.wicourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4D2F354F0200002500039510@gw.wicourts.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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