Re: random_page_cost vs seq_page_cost

On 07/02/12 19:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 05:06:18PM -0500, Greg Smith wrote:
> > On 02/07/2012 03:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Where did you see that there will be an improvement in the 9.2
> > >documentation? I don't see an improvement.
> >
> > I commented that I'm hoping for an improvement in the documentation
> > of how much timing overhead impacts attempts to measure this area
> > better. That's from the "add timing of buffer I/O requests" feature
> > submission. I'm not sure if Bene read too much into that or not; I
> > didn't mean to imply that the docs around random_page_cost have
> > gotten better.

I guess I did. But I'm very glad that as a side effect Bruce and Greg
have improved it ;-)