Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
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>
 <CA+Tgmoas1AbDQPAoE1yE9U7d56j06swZvickKKfoYjUoM3t6UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-WzkauoNo3TmWjWwTHRZPVaw1=VB51E8W3BRm5Zx4AVEByw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c5a2de9d-ded2-5876-5420-d1f6190ff352@2ndquadrant.com>
 <CAKJS1f9jEwsMeX22wh-T5_D9UPF-16Gjhq4=eEg9Aphc6WjG1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Message-ID: <973536be-26a8-5857-430d-07cda99ee5b4@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:26:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKJS1f9jEwsMeX22wh-T5_D9UPF-16Gjhq4=eEg9Aphc6WjG1A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 3/6/19 12:10 AM, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for chipping in on this.
> 
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> But on the other hand it feels a bit weird that we increase this one
>> value and leave all the other (also very conservative) defaults alone.
> 
> Which others did you have in mind? Like work_mem, shared_buffers?  If
> so, I mentioned in the initial post that I don't see vacuum_cost_limit
> as in the same category as those.  It's not like PostgreSQL won't
> start on a tiny server if vacuum_cost_limit is too high, but you will
> have issues with too big a shared_buffers, for example.   I think if
> we insist that this patch is a review of all the "how big is your
> server" GUCs then that's raising the bar significantly and
> unnecessarily for what I'm proposing here.
> 

On second thought, I think you're right. It's still true that you need
to bump up various other GUCs on reasonably current hardware, but it's
true vacuum_cost_limit is special enough to increase it separately.

so +1 (I see Andrew already pushed it, but anyway ...)

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services