Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYeHz-0002WJ-Rb for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:26:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYeHw-00066T-UJ for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:26:16 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYeHw-00065J-OV for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:26:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jYeHr-0004qi-LV for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 23:26:15 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 04CNQ7jm023941; Tue, 12 May 2020 19:26:07 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: "David G. Johnston" , yigongh@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: The suggestion of reducing autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay should be documented In-reply-to: <20200512224520.GE4666@momjian.us> References: <158927918783.656.11973436145559215458@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <20200512214014.GD4666@momjian.us> <20200512214101.GA21408@momjian.us> <20200512224520.GE4666@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 12 May 2020 18:45:20 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <23939.1589325967.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 19:26:07 -0400 Message-ID: <23940.1589325967@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:38:16PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: >> The proposal is to document in versions 9.4 to 11 that the recommended = value >> for the setting is 2ms while for reasons of continuity the default in t= hese >> versions is 20ms. >> I don't really see any harm in it.=C2=A0 Its not like the choice to red= uce the value >> was made because of new features introduced in 12 - it was a re-evaluat= ion of a >> 15 year old default. > Well, we really need to have some general discussion about whether > changing defaults in major releases should trigger a mention to change > the defaults in back branches. This is something that would have to be > discussed on the hackers list. It's not immediately obvious that the new default value established in version N is appropriate for version N-minus-several. Certainly, whatever testing was done to justify the new default wouldn't have been done on old versions; and there might have been relevant changes. In short: nope, I'm not on board with blindly back-patching such recommendations. regards, tom lane