| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |
| Date: | 2019-03-05 23:10:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f9jEwsMeX22wh-T5_D9UPF-16Gjhq4=eEg9Aphc6WjG1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for chipping in on this.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> But on the other hand it feels a bit weird that we increase this one
> value and leave all the other (also very conservative) defaults alone.
Which others did you have in mind? Like work_mem, shared_buffers? If
so, I mentioned in the initial post that I don't see vacuum_cost_limit
as in the same category as those. It's not like PostgreSQL won't
start on a tiny server if vacuum_cost_limit is too high, but you will
have issues with too big a shared_buffers, for example. I think if
we insist that this patch is a review of all the "how big is your
server" GUCs then that's raising the bar significantly and
unnecessarily for what I'm proposing here.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2019-03-05 23:23:03 | few more wait events to add to docs |
| Previous Message | Jerry Jelinek | 2019-03-05 22:52:34 | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |