On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 07:10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, +1 to increasing it. I imagine that the 10,000 limit would not allow people to explore the upper limits of a modern PCI-E SSD with the standard delay time and dirty/miss scores. Also, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that someone somewhere might also want to fine-tune the hit/miss/dirty scores so that they're some larger factor apart from each other the standard scores are. The 10,000 limit does not allow much wiggle room for that. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
