| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Date: | 2019-03-09 21:06:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> writes:
> Hope about keeping the default unit of ms, but converting it to a
> 'double' for input, but storing it as int (or long?) number of
> nanoseconds. Gives finer grain of control withouthaving to specify a
> unit, while still allowing calculations to be fast?
Don't really see the point. The only places where we do any calculations
with the value are where we're about to sleep, so shaving a few nanosec
doesn't seem very interesting.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2019-03-09 21:17:31 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-09 21:04:39 | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |