Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

Thanks for chipping in on this.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 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.

Which others did you have in mind? Like work_mem, shared_buffers?  If
so, I mentioned in the initial post that I don't see vacuum_cost_limit
as in the same category as those.  It's not like PostgreSQL won't
start on a tiny server if vacuum_cost_limit is too high, but you will
have issues with too big a shared_buffers, for example.   I think if
we insist that this patch is a review of all the "how big is your
server" GUCs then that's raising the bar significantly and
unnecessarily for what I'm proposing here.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services