Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Jeff Janes
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Jeff Janes writes: >> > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. >> > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf >> > (at least) needs to be updated. >> >> I

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Janes writes: > > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. > > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf > > (at least) needs to be updated. > > It looks like the problem is that the new range check > > + /*

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency in 9.6beta

2016-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes writes: > commit 1aba62ec made zero be an illegal value for effective_io_concurrency. > i think this was an accident. If not, then the sample postgresql.conf > (at least) needs to be updated. It looks like the problem is that the new range check + /* This range check shouldn't fail

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency documentation

2014-09-29 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I think this is a mistake. For example, we allow setting ssl to false > even if SSL support is not compiled in. +1 -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your su

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency

2012-08-31 Thread Jeff Janes
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Just how helpful is effective_io_concurrency? Did someone produce a > benchmark at some point? Attached is a benchmark I put together a while ago. I don't know how close to "real world" it might be. I haven't seen it in the wild, but I'

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency

2012-08-30 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 30 August 2012 20:28, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> But it might be better yet to make ordinary index scans benefit from >> effective_io_concurrency, but even if/when that gets done it would >> probably still be worthwhile to make the planner unders

Re: [HACKERS] effective_io_concurrency

2012-08-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > From my attempted reading of the thread "posix_fadvise v22", it seems > like modification of the planner was never discussed, rather than > being discussed and rejected. So, is there a reason not to make the > planner take account of effective_