Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3811.1552169665@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
BTW ... I noticed while fooling with this that GUC's out-of-range messages can be confusing: regression=# set vacuum_cost_delay = '1s'; ERROR: 1000 is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100) One's immediate reaction to that is "I put in 1, not 1000". I think it'd be much clearer if we included the unit we'd converted to, thus: ERROR: 1000 ms is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100) (Notice that this also implicitly tells what units the range limits are being quoted in. We could repeat the unit name in that part, viz "(0 .. 100 ms)", but it seems unnecessary.) A small problem with this idea is that GUC_UNIT_[X]BLOCK variables don't really have a natural unit name. If we follow the lead of pg_settings, such errors would look something like ERROR: 1000 8kB is outside the valid range for ... I can't think of a better idea, though, and it'd still be clearer than what happens now. Barring objections I'll go make this happen. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: