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 1h19ZQ-00054t-KP for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:53:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h19ZO-0004Hh-Io for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:53:18 +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 1h19ZO-0004HW-4x for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:53:18 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1h19ZK-0002fj-It for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:53:16 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id n19so2451478wmi.1 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 04:53:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p7iOIg1uB48/LTUHfjziSHf9kRFMAuJh3MJ7XfdDw7o=; b=1oYp0Nkv5gXVsFnJ8+gnICtNJ6CT9s2DaKgemEQm+PzK7fJmgJUBya8UeGZhsWC9aU vnHkjj/9ctwdXMZOcdRZy3OPQ11xri9GgmcWiodgfhnJ1v+qJ3GqkPIy8BVFI8jJZhVt 1fTAXuIzT1gbNGNe0IFcuxXDC+b+ANrjORRb0HVgzwJGc/wLAHyLQY3q20U5ujOiBOOj gpwowfO099S8wXLOmSHkaOl8xKd7F4LSBvr0OvAnGpx3e5mj3ndLoKokjwBS4ocL+sEO sFWm9r7amcpwOWn9x/pZtTIEv9r5x9drERYZ0Zk87uTa3aDdIW9pismhF0fXRVn1taU5 1+FQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=p7iOIg1uB48/LTUHfjziSHf9kRFMAuJh3MJ7XfdDw7o=; b=byMDTHUhIOZJ50jy1TltL0T9Pqu0V2KzU/jLKywP2kyUp4DqcS0jj60PENhsiP+iwE DdcRQ/QElOWsXLiBAN/r5Nxw6mjgo/8tCduIMbrR4sdqY1B9AIv0N7JdzLyXYz6x6w/h 8fR8PjmGiyFAQzgFMfbVudtPuKj/bSjm5qftJyCve4jOU30/6ntq519LkZ+oPkmhk8y6 ib6PqWLaxYAZXRcRCV7vTrfHbpjFXesdG1UZUjjJ2+Pc/Zxi9tTfVnZfrMVB1N8egSTc kjEK1lXT1j0h7Hk5g2Ij06Fm1vSnSNnx+GU6ghL+UsEKV+AsDkKbawWwlRyqHoXsRXKk EfqA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXj1Y+gJbKsb4Lhn+NPItu1SeeZhE7YRqg3sPMqMIsyxBdMBnw9 P2VmHtlL5UxmUOO8U0wBvIgQLIITojoQS2wER1f1VWRC0a3IaD6bzXXxLm4Cxd+rWySAiuo1Ej+ H83APGYkiiUKBueP3cfh6J7DOsz2IY7VLIOGwdp4ImQkSPo2jxKYwgYDScMgAz0gyb5uW9W9O3p k7xGR72W3vGrvbfGS5xUo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWwiC3w/Fw6F8Mrzo7tvxKey5R/xFrKcNVEEn1J67FYcieK3QhBIpt/cLnD+mQQstvRA8Zgg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:c5cb:: with SMTP id v194mr2786907wmf.150.1551790391491; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 04:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.137.0.18] (static-84-42-175-93.net.upcbroadband.cz. [84.42.175.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x17sm27441626wrd.95.2019.03.05.04.53.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 04:53:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? To: Peter Geoghegan , Robert Haas Cc: David Rowley , Joe Conway , PostgreSQL Hackers References: <241b80ab-7af0-c606-7b2c-b0a5d6be696a@joeconway.com> From: Tomas Vondra Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:53:07 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On 3/5/19 1:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robert Haas wrote: >> +1 for raising the default substantially. In my experience, and it >> seems others are in a similar place, nobody ever gets into trouble >> because the default is too high, but sometimes people get in trouble >> because the default is too low. > > Does anyone want to make an argument against the idea of raising the > default? They should speak up now. > I don't know. On the one hand I don't feel very strongly about this change, and I have no intention to block it (because in most cases I do actually increase the value anyway). I wonder if those with small systems will be happy about it, though. 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. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services