On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:54 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@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
