| From: | wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we reduce autovacuum_naptime max values |
| Date: | 2026-09-19 12:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAGjGUAJbJtD+qM=BXD2gOJors33qpdsB1m2-FFOmA-kJZs3whQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
HI Daniel
> > The current range 1..INT_MAX/1000 is indeed pretty wide, but I think
> it's hard,
> > or even impossible, to conclude that no one would ever want more than
> X. Could
> > the documentation be improved perhaps?
>
> Actually, I believe that lowering this value to a reasonable range is the
> most fundamental solution. By reducing the maximum value of this parameter,
> an error message will appear if it is set incorrectly, which can prevent
> disasters caused by incorrect settings. Moreover, lowering this value to
> 3600 seconds is still an unreasonably high value—but it’s at least much
> better than setting it to 23 hours.Personally, I think anything over 10
> minutes is unacceptable.
>
Thanks
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2026-09-19 13:00:00 | Re: Regression tests failures due to concurrent grants |
| Previous Message | wenhui qiu | 2026-09-19 12:50:05 | Re: PG 19 status blog report |