Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:03 AM David Rowley
<david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Definitely, rounding up will spare people from wasting time to check
what's the actual value.