Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h2JxC-0003iq-Hv for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:10:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h2JxA-0007wl-Vl for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:10:40 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h2JxA-0007sQ-KS for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:10:40 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h2Jx8-00014w-3n for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2019 18:10:39 +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 x28IAUX9021035; Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:10:30 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Jeff Janes cc: Andrew Dunstan , Jeremy Schneider , David Rowley , Joe Conway , Peter Geoghegan , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? In-reply-to: References: <241b80ab-7af0-c606-7b2c-b0a5d6be696a@joeconway.com> <4a068b09-5a6f-e975-07c9-2333fcef0a8a@amazon.com> <30411a5b-ef11-71ef-e9ee-4d26ef3fd0c0@2ndQuadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Jeff Janes message dated "Fri, 08 Mar 2019 10:20:19 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21033.1552068630.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:10:30 -0500 Message-ID: <21034.1552068630@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Jeff Janes 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