Horton

Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit?

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com>, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-03-06T22:01:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 08:54, Andrew Dunstan
<andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > On 3/5/19 14:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of
> >> support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute
> >> objections.
> > +1
> >
>
> done.

Thanks!

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

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