Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

From: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(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 18:38:10
Message-ID: 4a068b09-5a6f-e975-07c9-2333fcef0a8a@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

--
Jeremy Schneider
Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Schneider 2019-03-06 18:49:17 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2019-03-06 18:30:16 Re: Patch to document base64 encoding