Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1zM7sK9Xo2jjwCLj-t+GHR5nQJnPyFUp+puBiFpOQ7aBA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> On 3/5/19 14:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of
>> support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute
>> objections.
> +1
>
done.
Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded maximum of 10,000.
This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof. Especially since the hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none that is documented. Is it just mindless nannyism?
Any reason not to increase by at least a factor of 10, but preferably the largest value that does not cause computational problems (which I think would be INT_MAX)?
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: