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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
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 17:14:25 -0500
Message-ID: <3811.1552169665@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1798.1552165479@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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>
	<c88dc1b3-9d2c-5a87-717c-0fb2497b1f22@2ndQuadrant.com>
	<CAOBaU_Y8n9pmuRKeXUzUb_pPZmL-Nm601p_MdEMHBcBGp4W0UQ@! ! mail.gmail.com>
	<1798.1552165479@sss.pgh.pa.us>

BTW ... I noticed while fooling with this that GUC's out-of-range
messages can be confusing:

regression=# set vacuum_cost_delay = '1s';
ERROR:  1000 is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100)

One's immediate reaction to that is "I put in 1, not 1000".  I think
it'd be much clearer if we included the unit we'd converted to, thus:

ERROR:  1000 ms is outside the valid range for parameter "vacuum_cost_delay" (0 .. 100)

(Notice that this also implicitly tells what units the range limits
are being quoted in.  We could repeat the unit name in that part,
viz "(0 .. 100 ms)", but it seems unnecessary.)

A small problem with this idea is that GUC_UNIT_[X]BLOCK variables don't
really have a natural unit name.  If we follow the lead of pg_settings,
such errors would look something like

ERROR:  1000 8kB is outside the valid range for ...

I can't think of a better idea, though, and it'd still be clearer than
what happens now.

Barring objections I'll go make this happen.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <3811.1552169665@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../3811.1552169665@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/3811.1552169665@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, rjuju123@gmail.com, 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: <3811.1552169665@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