| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-03-11 09:03:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9Rg_dms4JsyNWiisS3BseHjhNB7LWfFJtviZMkoTyj7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 09:58, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The second patch is a delta that rounds off to the next smaller unit
> if there is one, producing a less noisy result:
>
> regression=# set work_mem = '30.1GB';
> SET
> regression=# show work_mem;
> work_mem
> ----------
> 30822MB
> (1 row)
>
> I'm not sure if that's a good idea or just overthinking the problem.
> Thoughts?
I don't think you're over thinking it. I often have to look at such
settings and I'm probably not unique in when I glance at 30822MB I can
see that's roughly 30GB, whereas when I look at 31562138kB, I'm either
counting digits or reaching for a calculator. This is going to reduce
the time it takes for a human to process the pg_settings output, so I
think it's a good idea.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | MikalaiKeida | 2019-03-11 09:07:11 | RE: Timeout parameters |
| Previous Message | Rahila Syed | 2019-03-11 09:02:27 | Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] |