Thanks for chipping in on this. On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 01:53, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@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
