Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:46:52 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>,
	David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	Darafei =?utf-8?Q?Kom=D1=8Fpa?= Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Berserk Autovacuum (let's save next Mandrill)
Message-ID: <20200325154652.GA13069@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200325150656.GX21443@telsasoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Mar-25, Justin Pryzby wrote:

> Maybe in the docs you can write this with thousands separators: 10,000,000
> 
> It looks like the GUC uses scale factor max=1e10, but the relopt is still
> max=100, which means it's less possible to disable for a single rel.

I have paid no attention to this thread, but how does it make sense to
have a scale factor to be higher than 100?  Surely you mean the
threshold value that should be set to ten million, not the scale factor?

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