On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:54 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I think our text "This new default better reflects current hardware
> capabilities." is detailed enough. People can dig into the item to see
> what it does and how it adjusts costs.
Fair enough.
I noticed something about the same item that needs to be fixed,
though. The vacuum_cost_page_miss GUC does not directly represent any
kind of time-based delay, but the current wording says that it uses
millisecond units. In fact the vacuum_cost_page_miss GUC is based on
abstract cost units, apportioned from vacuum_cost_limit. I suggested
that the wording talk about relative cost differences in part because
that's just how the GUC works, in general.
--
Peter Geoghegan
