Re: PoC: history of recent vacuum/checkpoint runs (using new hooks)

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PoC: history of recent vacuum/checkpoint runs (using new hooks)
Date: 2024-12-26 17:58:11
Message-ID: a40fc9ea-ec9a-4f34-a5d5-42629c76fbb2@vondra.me
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/26/24 17:00, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Hi 
>    
> As far as I know, more than 10,000 tables  of instances  are often
> encountered,
> So I insist that the maximum can be appropriately increased to 256MB，
> Can be more adaptable to many table situations
>

If 128MB is insufficient, why would 256MB be OK? A factor of 2x does not
make a fundamental difference ...

Anyway, the 128MB value is rather arbitrary. I don't mind increasing the
limit, or possibly removing it entirely (and accepting anything the
system can handle).

regards

--
Tomas Vondra

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Wheeler 2024-12-26 18:26:11 Re: Add Postgres module info
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2024-12-26 16:59:20 Re: Fix crash when non-creator being an iteration on shared radix tree