| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-03-08 15:20:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1zM7sK9Xo2jjwCLj-t+GHR5nQJnPyFUp+puBiFpOQ7aBA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andrew Dunstan <
andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > On 3/5/19 14:14, 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
> >
>
> done.
>
Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded
maximum of 10,000.
This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof. Especially since the
hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none
that is documented. Is it just mindless nannyism?
Any reason not to increase by at least a factor of 10, but preferably the
largest value that does not cause computational problems (which I think
would be INT_MAX)?
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Khandekar | 2019-03-08 15:29:29 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-03-08 15:19:03 | Re: Online verification of checksums |