Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs vacuum_cost_delay

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:34 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 01:10:01PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:17:56PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:21 AM Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:23:34PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > + Non-zero values of
> > > > > + <varname>vacuum_cost_delay</varname> will delay statistics generation.
> > > >
> > > > Now I wonder wheter vacuumdb maybe should have an option to explicitly
> > > > force vacuum_cost_delay to 0 (I don't think it has?)?
> > >
> > > That's exactly what I proposed, isn't it? :)
> >
> > You're right, I somehow only saw your mail after I had already sent
> > mine.
> >
> > To make up for this, I created a patch that implements our propoals, see
> > attached.
>
> This is already posssible with PGOPTIONS, so I don't see the need for
> a separate option:
>
> PGOPTIONS='-c vacuum_cost_delay=99' psql -c 'SHOW vacuum_cost_delay;'
> test
> vacuum_cost_delay
> -------------------
> 99ms
> (1 row)
>
> Here is a patch which shows its usage.

Given how common this would be I think that's a pretty use-unfriendly
way to do it. I'd vote for still adding it.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/