Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

From: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, 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 22:01:19
Message-ID: CAKJS1f-=yTdEx03UwWr4Kna3MD8o4BmExVURLiNVa10ek7YEpA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 08:54, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> done.

Thanks!

--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2019-03-06 22:07:31 Re: pg_dump is broken for partition tablespaces
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-03-06 21:56:23 Re: shared-memory based stats collector