Re: maintenance memory vs autovac

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: maintenance memory vs autovac
Date: 2008-12-03 01:00:15
Message-ID: 26625.1228266015@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
>> runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
>> tale 5x minutes?"

> As long as the default is the same, people would get at least an initial
> clue that it might have something to do with them changing a
> configuration parameter...

It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual
evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than
other processes?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-12-03 01:04:07 Re: [BUG] lo_open() makes a warning/falls to an assertion
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-03 00:52:41 Re: pg_stat_all_tables vs NULLs