From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(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: | 2019-03-10 13:18:26 |
Message-ID: | CAOBaU_Yx2BPHNNPNS=mfcX3R5m3zxy=CKVWQyJxbYV1kaS5+WA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> BTW ... I noticed while fooling with this that GUC's out-of-range
> messages can be confusing:
>
> regression=# set vacuum_cost_delay = '1s';
> ERROR: 1000 is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100)
>
> One's immediate reaction to that is "I put in 1, not 1000". I think
> it'd be much clearer if we included the unit we'd converted to, thus:
>
> ERROR: 1000 ms is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100)
>
> (Notice that this also implicitly tells what units the range limits
> are being quoted in.
I like it!
> A small problem with this idea is that GUC_UNIT_[X]BLOCK variables don't
> really have a natural unit name. If we follow the lead of pg_settings,
> such errors would look something like
>
> ERROR: 1000 8kB is outside the valid range for ...
>
> I can't think of a better idea, though, and it'd still be clearer than
> what happens now.
>
> Barring objections I'll go make this happen.
No objection here.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ramanarayana | 2019-03-10 13:26:57 | Re: Add missing CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table_name AS EXECUTE query; |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-03-10 13:10:43 | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |