Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?
Date: 2025-10-30 23:13:01
Message-ID: aQPw_dCgVycGrUvA@momjian.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 08:05:37AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 8:16 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > I rewrote the random_page_cost docs, attached, to remove a focus on
> > magnetic disk, and added network latency as a reason for
> > random_page_cost being low. I removed the specific caching numbers and
> > went with a more generic description.
> >
> > I would normally apply this only to master, but given the complaints in
> > this thread, maybe I should backpatch it.
>
> This seems fine to me but I won't be surprised if other people have
> some complaints. :-)

Doc patch applied to all supported releases.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2025-10-30 23:17:05 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2025-10-30 23:08:17 Re: Resetting recovery target parameters in pg_createsubscriber