Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken
Date: 2023-03-10 00:25:52
Message-ID: CA+hUKGLi=2P3hEDwwjZfDZk2cyKxf1fgk0Pb=14AArK677Keog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Erm, but maybe I'm just looking at this too myopically. Is there
really any point in letting people set it to 0.5, if it behaves as if
you'd set it to 1 and doubled the cost limit? Isn't it just more
confusing? I haven't read the discussion from when fractional delays
came in, where I imagine that must have come up...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-03-10 00:26:31 Re: Date-Time dangling unit fix
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2023-03-10 00:05:27 Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken