| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 19:04:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1289934213-sup-3051@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar nov 16 15:52:14 -0300 2010:
>
> > I think the difficulty is figuring out what to get the existing
> > workers to give us some memory when a new one comes along. You want
> > the first worker to potentially use ALL the memory... until worker #2
> > arrives.
>
> Yeah, doing this would mean that you couldn't give worker #1 all the
> memory, because on most OSes it can't release the memory even if it
> wants to.
Hmm, good point.
> Relevant to this is the question: *when* does vacuum do its memory
> allocation? Is memory allocation reasonably front-loaded, or does
> vacuum keep grabbing more RAM until it's done?
All at start.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-16 19:06:00 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-16 19:00:47 | Re: Per-column collation |