Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs vacuum_cost_delay

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.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.