David Rowley wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 02:06, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/25/19 1:17 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:42 PM David Rowley > > > <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > >> The current default vacuum_cost_limit of 200 seems to be 15 years old > > >> and was added in f425b605f4e. > > >> > > >> Any supporters for raising the default? > > > > > > I also think that the current default limit is far too conservative. > > > > I agree entirely. In my experience you are usually much better off if > > vacuum finishes quickly. Personally I think our default scale factors > > are horrible too, especially when there are tables with large numbers of > > rows. > > Agreed that the scale factors are not perfect, but I don't think > changing them is as quite a no-brainer as the vacuum_cost_limit, so > the attached patch just does the vacuum_cost_limit. > > I decided to do the times by 10 option that I had mentioned.... Ensue > debate about that... > > I'll add this to the March commitfest and set the target version as PG12.
I think this is a good move. It is way easier to recover from an over-eager autovacuum than from one that didn't manage to finish... Yours, Laurenz Albe
