Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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?
Hm. I think the idea was that rather than setting it to "something very
large", you'd want to just disable the feature via vacuum_cost_delay.
But I agree that the threshold for what is ridiculously large probably
ought to be well more than 5x the default, and maybe it is just mindless
nannyism to have a limit less than what the implementation can handle.
regards, tom lane
