Message-ID: <a40fc9ea-ec9a-4f34-a5d5-42629c76fbb2@vondra.me>
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 18:58:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: PoC: history of recent vacuum/checkpoint runs (using new hooks)
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <b68ab452-c41f-4d04-893f-eaab84f1855b@vondra.me>
 <CAGjGUAJSg3tJGxjeyU6T98ZYCXcAiGpq0eitAUQVaOa+nULDuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8df7cee1-31aa-4db3-bbb7-83157ca139da@vondra.me>
 <CABV9wwPcnoS+=27o=pHinCy7fegTTfB=yECyK5XyGecCFfrFHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGjGUAKXjFw+zq+9GZ+y5p360pkO7UuTojkKuB6k3MtdDCEf6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: <CAGjGUAKXjFw+zq+9GZ+y5p360pkO7UuTojkKuB6k3MtdDCEf6w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a40fc9ea-ec9a-4f34-a5d5-42629c76fbb2%40vondra.me>
Precedence: bulk

On 12/26/24 17:00, wenhui qiu wrote:
> Hi 
>    
> As far as I know, more than 10,000 tables  of instances  are often
> encountered,
> So I insist that the maximum can be appropriately increased to 256MB，
> Can be more adaptable to many table situations
> 

If 128MB is insufficient, why would 256MB be OK? A factor of 2x does not
make a fundamental difference ...

Anyway, the 128MB value is rather arbitrary. I don't mind increasing the
limit, or possibly removing it entirely (and accepting anything the
system can handle).


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra