Обсуждение: Removing xloginsert_slots?
Hi all, The undocumented GUC called xloginsert_slots has been introduced by commit 9a20a9b. It is mentioned by the commit that this parameter should be removed before the release. Wouldn't it be a good time to remove this parameter soon? I imagine that removing it before the beta would make sense so now is perhaps too early... Either way, attached is a patch doing so... Regards, -- Michael
Вложения
Hi, On 2014-01-29 21:59:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > The undocumented GUC called xloginsert_slots has been introduced by > commit 9a20a9b. It is mentioned by the commit that this parameter > should be removed before the release. Wouldn't it be a good time to > remove this parameter soon? I imagine that removing it before the beta > would make sense so now is perhaps too early... Either way, attached > is a patch doing so... I'd rather wait till somebody actually has done some benchmarks. I don't think we're more clueful about it now than back when the patch went in. And such benchmarking is more likely during beta, so... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-01-29 21:59:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> The undocumented GUC called xloginsert_slots has been introduced by >> commit 9a20a9b. It is mentioned by the commit that this parameter >> should be removed before the release. Wouldn't it be a good time to >> remove this parameter soon? I imagine that removing it before the beta >> would make sense so now is perhaps too early... Either way, attached >> is a patch doing so... > > I'd rather wait till somebody actually has done some benchmarks. I don't > think we're more clueful about it now than back when the patch went > in. And such benchmarking is more likely during beta, so... Well, it's either got to go away, or get documented, IMHO. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 29. Januar 2014 20:51:38 MEZ, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> >wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2014-01-29 21:59:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> The undocumented GUC called xloginsert_slots has been introduced by >>> commit 9a20a9b. It is mentioned by the commit that this parameter >>> should be removed before the release. Wouldn't it be a good time to >>> remove this parameter soon? I imagine that removing it before the >beta >>> would make sense so now is perhaps too early... Either way, attached >>> is a patch doing so... >> >> I'd rather wait till somebody actually has done some benchmarks. I >don't >> think we're more clueful about it now than back when the patch went >> in. And such benchmarking is more likely during beta, so... > >Well, it's either got to go away, or get documented, IMHO. Yes, all I am saying is that I'd like to wait till things have calmed down a bit, so it actually makes sense to run biggerbenchmarks. I don't think removing the option is that urgent. Andres -- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 29 January 2014 20:53, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 29. Januar 2014 20:51:38 MEZ, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> >>wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2014-01-29 21:59:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> The undocumented GUC called xloginsert_slots has been introduced by >>>> commit 9a20a9b. It is mentioned by the commit that this parameter >>>> should be removed before the release. Wouldn't it be a good time to >>>> remove this parameter soon? I imagine that removing it before the >>beta >>>> would make sense so now is perhaps too early... Either way, attached >>>> is a patch doing so... >>> >>> I'd rather wait till somebody actually has done some benchmarks. I >>don't >>> think we're more clueful about it now than back when the patch went >>> in. And such benchmarking is more likely during beta, so... >> >>Well, it's either got to go away, or get documented, IMHO. > > Yes, all I am saying is that I'd like to wait till things have calmed down a bit, so it actually makes sense to run biggerbenchmarks. I don't think removing the option is that urgent. I do not want this removed until we have reasonable evidence that the correct number is "8", and that it is useful for both small, large and every other kind of config. We may find evidence it is useful to be able to alter this in the field and decide to keep it. I suggest we maintain a "Request for Beta Tests" list, so people are aware that they can (and should) test this, but it is not necessarily functionality we would like to keep in the future. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services