Horton

Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-03-06T20:07:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So I think we should either rename e_i_c or keep it as is, and then also
> have a new GUC. And then translate the values between those (but that
> might be overkill).

Please DON'T try to have two interrelated GUCs for this.  We learned
our lesson about that years ago.

I think dropping the existing GUC is a perfectly sane thing to do,
if the new definition wouldn't be compatible.  In practice few
people will notice, because few will have set it.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Introduce a maintenance_io_concurrency setting.

  2. Simplify the effective_io_concurrency setting.