On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 3/6/19 1:38 PM, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > > On 3/5/19 14:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> This patch is tiny, seems perfectly reasonable, and has plenty of > >> support. I'm going to commit it shortly unless there are last minute > >> objections. > > +1 > > > > done. > Now that this is done, the default value is only 5x below the hard-coded maximum of 10,000. This seems a bit odd, and not very future-proof. Especially since the hard-coded maximum appears to have no logic to it anyway, at least none that is documented. Is it just mindless nannyism? Any reason not to increase by at least a factor of 10, but preferably the largest value that does not cause computational problems (which I think would be INT_MAX)? Cheers, Jeff
