pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 16:06:33 -0500
Message-ID: <1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cca8d7e5-2c5d-0d60-8ec4-d9280877ce9d@archidevsys.co.nz>
References: <CAKJS1f_YbXC2qTMPyCbmsPiKvZYwpuQNQMohiRXLj1r=8_rYvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wz=WQ9ju6sjPF7RcW0g6NPXAenZeC5qVme6uj+eMRw5q2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<241b80ab-7af0-c606-7b2c-b0a5d6be696a@joeconway.com>
	<CAKJS1f_5xofbg0K16MkhQPeCXV6oGCuD2SVcV76OW7ydFDHDkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<df548503-d261-d8c4-97d0-61be6617df41@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<4a068b09-5a6f-e975-07c9-2333fcef0a8a@amazon.com>
	<30411a5b-ef11-71ef-e9ee-4d26ef3fd0c0@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<CAMkU=1zM7sK9Xo2jjwCLj-t+GHR5nQJnPyFUp+puBiFpOQ7aBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<21034.1552068630@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f9wbS+SzEDUXyMuLCsNgwMH=1Ztj3QE3WxuKdJtbqrOEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<13d143dd-0a44-0c16-218c-bc924b5922f0@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<26656.1552096451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<28720.1552101086@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f8s5Cxat65_-uE97oUpoonO3p_2rFMf-cKA7kpAaS1-OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<203719fc-1970-4a49-8013-eba3fd109b19@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<24300.1552154154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<cca8d7e5-2c5d-0d60-8ec4-d9280877ce9d@archidevsys.co.nz>

Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz> writes:
> Hope about  keeping the default unit of ms, but converting it to a 
> 'double' for input, but storing it as int (or long?) number of 
> nanoseconds.  Gives finer grain of control withouthaving to specify a 
> unit, while still allowing calculations to be fast?

Don't really see the point.  The only places where we do any calculations
with the value are where we're about to sleep, so shaving a few nanosec
doesn't seem very interesting.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, jeff.janes@gmail.com, schnjere@amazon.com, mail@joeconway.com, pg@bowt.ie, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
  In-Reply-To: <1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox