doc: suggest 1.1 as a random_page_cost value for SSDs

Reported-by: yigong hu
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAOxFffcourucFqSk+tZA13ErS3XRYkDy6EeaPff4AvHGiEEuug@mail.gmail.com

Backpatch-through: 9.5

diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
index 943cbe656efda125c04aeec23195008047114516..0aa3c97a0ec8f13d3a047903cc2e0e8c33c09d2d 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
@@ -3360,7 +3360,8 @@ include_dir 'conf.d'
         the database is smaller than the total server memory, decreasing
         random_page_cost can be appropriate.  Storage that has a low random
         read cost relative to sequential, e.g. solid-state drives, might
-        also be better modeled with a lower value for random_page_cost.
+        also be better modeled with a lower value for random_page_cost,
+        e.g., <literal>1.1</literal>.
        </para>
 
        <tip>