Re: Overhauling GUCS

"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

> Greg,
>
>> At least that way we could always steal more if we want or return some, as
>> long as we're careful about when we do it. That would open the door to having
>> these parameters be dynamically adjustable. That alone would be worthwhile
>> even if we bypass all bells and whistles of the buffer manager.
>>
>
> One hitch, though, is that asynchronous commit could consume big chunks of
> shared_buffers.  So we might still need a limit for people who are using async.

Well currently we use a fixed number of fixed-sized buffers, no? I doubt we'll
change that even if we take this tact of making wal_buffers resizable by
stealing buffers from the buffer manager for precisely the reasons Tom was
describing.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!