On 3/8/19 6:47 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 07:10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded
>>> maximum of 10,000.
>>> This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof. Especially since the
>>> hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none
>>> that is documented. Is it just mindless nannyism?
>> Hm. I think the idea was that rather than setting it to "something very
>> large", you'd want to just disable the feature via vacuum_cost_delay.
>> But I agree that the threshold for what is ridiculously large probably
>> ought to be well more than 5x the default, and maybe it is just mindless
>> nannyism to have a limit less than what the implementation can handle.
> Yeah, +1 to increasing it. I imagine that the 10,000 limit would not
> allow people to explore the upper limits of a modern PCI-E SSD with
> the standard delay time and dirty/miss scores. Also, it doesn't seem
> entirely unreasonable that someone somewhere might also want to
> fine-tune the hit/miss/dirty scores so that they're some larger factor
> apart from each other the standard scores are. The 10,000 limit does
> not allow much wiggle room for that.
>
Increase it to what?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
