Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2019-03-06 19:54:27
Message-ID: 30411a5b-ef11-71ef-e9ee-4d26ef3fd0c0@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


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.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2019-03-06 19:56:10 Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2019-03-06 19:53:57 Re: Online verification of checksums