| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
| Date: | 2025-10-06 04:46:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqSYkDW_2L7v_g=T3o3WXE=Kb+noFNQu153UAXbRmKsNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 17:19, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I really can't agree more. Many default values are just too conservative, and the documentation doesn't provide best practices.，i think reduce to 1.x，Or add a tip in the document, providing a recommended value for different SSDs.
Did you read Tomas's email or just the subject line? I think if
you're going to propose to move it in the opposite direction as to
what Tomas found to be the more useful direction, then that at least
warrants providing some evidence to the contrary of what Tomas has
shown or stating that you think his methodology for his calculation is
flawed because...
I suspect all you've done here is propagate the typical advice people
give out around here. It appears to me that Tomas went to great
lengths to not do that.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-10-06 04:52:09 | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-06 04:30:01 | Re: [PATCH] random_normal function |