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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.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: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:10:30 -0500
Message-ID: <21034.1552068630@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMkU=1zM7sK9Xo2jjwCLj-t+GHR5nQJnPyFUp+puBiFpOQ7aBA@mail.gmail.com>
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>

Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded
> maximum of 10,000.
> This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof.  Especially since the
> hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none
> that is documented.  Is it just mindless nannyism?

Hm.  I think the idea was that rather than setting it to "something very
large", you'd want to just disable the feature via vacuum_cost_delay.
But I agree that the threshold for what is ridiculously large probably
ought to be well more than 5x the default, and maybe it is just mindless
nannyism to have a limit less than what the implementation can handle.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <21034.1552068630@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../21034.1552068630@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/21034.1552068630@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, jeff.janes@gmail.com, andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com, schnjere@amazon.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.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: <21034.1552068630@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