| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |
| Date: | 2021-05-22 22:35:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmgSnDX9WVoxRZxuKeCy2MzLO9Dmo4+go0RzNW0VBdhmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:54 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I think our text "This new default better reflects current hardware
> capabilities." is detailed enough. People can dig into the item to see
> what it does and how it adjusts costs.
Fair enough.
I noticed something about the same item that needs to be fixed,
though. The vacuum_cost_page_miss GUC does not directly represent any
kind of time-based delay, but the current wording says that it uses
millisecond units. In fact the vacuum_cost_page_miss GUC is based on
abstract cost units, apportioned from vacuum_cost_limit. I suggested
that the wording talk about relative cost differences in part because
that's just how the GUC works, in general.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-05-22 23:23:26 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-05-22 21:56:32 | Development version of release notes |