Horton

Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-10-09T12:05:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 8:16 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I rewrote the random_page_cost docs, attached, to remove a focus on
> magnetic disk, and added network latency as a reason for
> random_page_cost being low.  I removed the specific caching numbers and
> went with a more generic description.
>
> I would normally apply this only to master, but given the complaints in
> this thread, maybe I should backpatch it.

This seems fine to me but I won't be surprised if other people have
some complaints. :-)

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com