Thanks for chipping in on this.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> But on the other hand it feels a bit weird that we increase this one
> value and leave all the other (also very conservative) defaults alone.
Which others did you have in mind? Like work_mem, shared_buffers? If
so, I mentioned in the initial post that I don't see vacuum_cost_limit
as in the same category as those. It's not like PostgreSQL won't
start on a tiny server if vacuum_cost_limit is too high, but you will
have issues with too big a shared_buffers, for example. I think if
we insist that this patch is a review of all the "how big is your
server" GUCs then that's raising the bar significantly and
unnecessarily for what I'm proposing here.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
