Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

On 4/21/14, 9:51 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 04/21/2014 12:44 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> On 4/21/14 9:38 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/21/2014 12:25 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. OS developers are not the target audience for GUCs. If the OS 
>>>>> developers want to test and can't be botherrd with building with a 
>>>>> couple of different parameters then I'm not very impressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. We should be trying to get rid of GUCs where possible, and only 
>>>>> add them when we must. The more there are the more we confuse 
>>>>> users. If a packager can pick a default surely they can pick build 
>>>>> options too.
>>>> Thank you for the lecture Andrew!  Really pleasant way to treat a 
>>>> user and a fan of the system. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I confess to being mightily confused.
>>
>> Sure, to clarify:
>>
>> Andrew, you just told someone who in a db stack sits both below (as a 
>> pgsql user 15 years) and above (as a FreeBSD kernel dev 15 years) 
>> your software what they "really need".
>>
>>
>
>
> I told you what *we* (i.e. the PostgreSQL community) need, IMNSHO (and 
> speaking as a Postgres developer and consultant of 10 or so years 
> standing).

How high on the hierarchy of PostgreSQL's "needs" is making a single 
option a tunable versus compile time thing?  I mean seriously you mean 
to stick on this one point when one of your users are asking you about 
this?   That is pretty concerning to me.

-Alfred