From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
        David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>,
        Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com>,
        Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
	message dated "Sun, 10 Mar 2019 09:36:59 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <1862.1552165593.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 16:06:33 -0500
Message-ID: <1863.1552165593@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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