Horton

Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-05T00:14:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Allow fractional input values for integer GUCs, and improve rounding logic.

  2. Reduce the default value of autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay to 2ms.

  3. Revert "Increase the default vacuum_cost_limit from 200 to 2000"

  4. Convert [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay into floating-point GUCs.

  5. Include GUC's unit, if it has one, in out-of-range error messages.

  6. Disallow NaN as a value for floating-point GUCs.

  7. Increase the default vacuum_cost_limit from 200 to 2000