From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
Date: | 2019-03-06 20:26:49 |
Message-ID: | 973536be-26a8-5857-430d-07cda99ee5b4@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/6/19 12:10 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for chipping in on this.
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> But on the other hand it feels a bit weird that we increase this one
>> value and leave all the other (also very conservative) defaults alone.
>
> Which others did you have in mind? Like work_mem, shared_buffers? If
> so, I mentioned in the initial post that I don't see vacuum_cost_limit
> as in the same category as those. It's not like PostgreSQL won't
> start on a tiny server if vacuum_cost_limit is too high, but you will
> have issues with too big a shared_buffers, for example. I think if
> we insist that this patch is a review of all the "how big is your
> server" GUCs then that's raising the bar significantly and
> unnecessarily for what I'm proposing here.
>
On second thought, I think you're right. It's still true that you need
to bump up various other GUCs on reasonably current hardware, but it's
true vacuum_cost_limit is special enough to increase it separately.
so +1 (I see Andrew already pushed it, but anyway ...)
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-03-06 20:41:04 | Binary upgrade from <12 to 12 creates toast table for partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-06 20:17:11 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |