Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

On 3/9/19 12:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 3/9/19 4:28 AM, David Rowley wrote:
>>> I agree that vacuum_cost_delay might not be granular enough, however.
>>> If we're going to change the vacuum_cost_delay into microseconds, then
>>> I'm a little concerned that it'll silently break existing code that
>>> sets it. Scripts that do manual off-peak vacuums are pretty common
>>> out in the wild.
>> Maybe we could leave the default units as msec but store it and allow
>> specifying as usec. Not sure how well the GUC mechanism would cope with
>> that.
> I took a quick look at that and I'm afraid it'd be a mess. GUC doesn't
> really distinguish between a variable's storage unit, its default input
> unit, or its default output unit (as seen in e.g. pg_settings). Perhaps
> we could split those into two or three distinct concepts, but it seems
> complicated and bug-prone. Also I think we'd still be forced into
> making obviously-incompatible changes in what pg_settings shows for
> this variable, since what it shows right now is integer ms. That last
> isn't a deal-breaker perhaps, but 100% compatibility isn't going to
> happen this way.
>
> The idea of converting vacuum_cost_delay into a float variable, while
> keeping its native unit as ms, seems probably more feasible from a
> compatibility standpoint. There are two sub-possibilities:
>
> 1. Just do that and lose units support for the variable. I don't
> think this is totally unreasonable, because up to now ms is the
> *only* workable unit for it:
>
> regression=# set vacuum_cost_delay = '1s';
> ERROR: 1000 is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100)
>
> Still, it'd mean that anyone who'd been explicitly setting it with
> an "ms" qualifier would have to change their postgresql.conf entry.
>
> 2. Add support for units for float variables, too. I don't think
> this'd be a huge amount of work, and we'd surely have other uses
> for it in the long run.
>
> I'm inclined to go look into #2. Anybody think this is a bad idea?
>
>

Sounds good to me, seems much more likely to be future-proof.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services