| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| 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: | 2019-02-25 16:39:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_YX-4zWAN7BEebWxNsXBdL1W-vbCGW=xnEW6tpOwed-tA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:44 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> David Rowley wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 02:06, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/25/19 1:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:42 PM David Rowley
> > > > <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >> The current default vacuum_cost_limit of 200 seems to be 15 years old
> > > >> and was added in f425b605f4e.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any supporters for raising the default?
> > [...]
> > I'll add this to the March commitfest and set the target version as PG12.
>
> I think this is a good move.
>
> It is way easier to recover from an over-eager autovacuum than from
> one that didn't manage to finish...
+1
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2019-02-25 16:40:43 | Re: Referential Integrity Checks with Statement-level Triggers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-25 16:34:43 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |