| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Date: | 2020-03-25 15:46:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20200325154652.GA13069@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Mar-25, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Maybe in the docs you can write this with thousands separators: 10,000,000
>
> It looks like the GUC uses scale factor max=1e10, but the relopt is still
> max=100, which means it's less possible to disable for a single rel.
I have paid no attention to this thread, but how does it make sense to
have a scale factor to be higher than 100? Surely you mean the
threshold value that should be set to ten million, not the scale factor?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2020-03-25 16:05:21 | Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill) |
| Previous Message | Andy Fan | 2020-03-25 15:20:30 | Re: [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition |