Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLi=2P3hEDwwjZfDZk2cyKxf1fgk0Pb=14AArK677Keog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Erm, but maybe I'm just looking at this too myopically.  Is there
really any point in letting people set it to 0.5, if it behaves as if
you'd set it to 1 and doubled the cost limit?  Isn't it just more
confusing?  I haven't read the discussion from when fractional delays
came in, where I imagine that must have come up...



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Sub-millisecond [autovacuum_]vacuum_cost_delay broken
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Date-Time dangling unit fix