Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TisWR-00079T-FO for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:03:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TisWQ-0007iP-JJ for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:03:14 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TisWP-0007iJ-Io for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:03:13 +0000 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TisWM-0004SA-Lb for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:03:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.149 Received: from mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.149]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8AF172087 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:02:58 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter21-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]) by mfilter21-d.gandi.net (mfilter21-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRSFhVfQPEvZ for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:02:57 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 98.27.58.255 Received: from [192.168.10.146] (cpe-098-027-058-255.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.58.255]) (Authenticated sender: adsend@dunslane.net) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F5D51720A5 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:02:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50C8E2EE.10205@dunslane.net> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:02:54 -0500 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-perform Subject: track_activity_query_size Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Is there a performance downside to setting track_activity_query_size to a significantly larger value than the default 1024 (say 10240), given that there's plenty of memory to spare? cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance