Tom Lane wrote: > Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Well, yes they are. They cause unnecessary process wakeups and thereby > >> consume cycles even when the database is idle. See for example a > >> longstanding complaint here: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252129 > > > ... The only clear case where this is > > always a win is when the system it totally idle. > > If you'll climb down off that horse for a moment: yeah, the idle case is > *exactly* what they're complaining about. In particular, the complaint > is that it's unreasonable to have Postgres running on a machine at all > unless it's actively being used, because it forces significant CPU power > drain anyway. That gets in the way of our plan for world domination, > no? If you can't have a PG sitting unobtrusively in the background, > waiting for you to have a need for it, it won't get installed in the > first place. People will pick mysql, or something else with a smaller > footprint, to put on their laptops, and then we lose some more mindshare. > I see this as just another facet of the argument about whether it's okay > to have default settings that try to take over the entire machine.
FYI, last week I was running PG 8.4.X with default settings on a T43 laptop running XP with 1 Gig of RAM and it caused a racing game I was playing to run jerkily. When I shut down the Postgres server, the problem was fixed. I was kind of surprised that an idle PG server could cause that. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
