Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 8:16 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I rewrote the random_page_cost docs, attached, to remove a focus on
> magnetic disk, and added network latency as a reason for
> random_page_cost being low.  I removed the specific caching numbers and
> went with a more generic description.
>
> I would normally apply this only to master, but given the complaints in
> this thread, maybe I should backpatch it.

This seems fine to me but I won't be surprised if other people have
some complaints. :-)

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com