On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 03:35:13PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> 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.
OK, thanks. Here is the updated text:
<listitem>
<!--
Author: Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie>
2021-01-27 [e19594c5c] Reduce the default value of
vacuum_cost_page_miss.
-->
<para>
Reduce the default value of <xref linkend="guc-vacuum-cost-page-miss"/>
to better reflects current hardware capabilities (Peter Geoghegan)
</para>
</listitem>
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
