Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
Date: 2019-03-05 22:19:19
Message-ID: 20190305221919.bbhvyj7ch645i54s@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-03-05 17:14:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of
> support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute
> objections.

+1

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-03-05 22:29:50 Re: A separate table level option to control compression
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-03-05 22:14:55 Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?