Kevin Brown wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > OK, I agree it should be bumped up, but the issue is whether to do that
> > > in a minor release. It will increase shared memory by 36k. Is that
> > > safe in a beta? Tom, Mr. FSM, can you comment?
> >
> > It seems a reasonably safe change, but I too am concerned about making
> > such changes in minor releases. For 7.3.1 in particular, since there
> > have already been publicly available tarballs, I think we should avoid
> > making any more changes other than documentation fixes; otherwise
> > there's too much risk of confusion ("which 7.3.1 have you got?").
>
> I don't quite understand why there's reluctance to change this,
> though. What will it break?
>
> It's probably sufficient to put something in the release notes
> indicating that MAX_FSM_RELATIONS has increased and that you should
> manually set it back to 100 in the config file if the change causes
> problems.
>
> With even relatively old systems having 128 megabytes or more memory
> installed, I'd think that a 36k increase in shared memory usage is
> small enough to make the change worth the risk.
>
>
> Now, your concerns are probably more justified if you're worried about
> the change causing some little-used code to suddenly start seeing a
> lot of usage...
I think we have agreed on putting it on 7.3.X. The issue is that 7.3.1
is already packaged, so it will have to wait for 7.3.2.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
