| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Date: | 2019-03-05 12:53:07 |
| Message-ID: | c5a2de9d-ded2-5876-5420-d1f6190ff352@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/5/19 1:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +1 for raising the default substantially. In my experience, and it
>> seems others are in a similar place, nobody ever gets into trouble
>> because the default is too high, but sometimes people get in trouble
>> because the default is too low.
>
> Does anyone want to make an argument against the idea of raising the
> default? They should speak up now.
>
I don't know.
On the one hand I don't feel very strongly about this change, and I have
no intention to block it (because in most cases I do actually increase
the value anyway). I wonder if those with small systems will be happy
about it, though.
But on the other hand it feels a bit weird that we increase this one
value and leave all the other (also very conservative) defaults alone.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-03-05 13:08:03 | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2019-03-05 12:47:54 | Re: Prevent extension creation in temporary schemas |