Re: maintenance memory vs autovac

From: "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 10:09:17
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10812030209p3137d226pf62d049c02221bf6@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
>> we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
>
> It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
> process.

I agree. What I implied is that by default you have 3 autovacuum
workers so the behaviour has changed, even if it didn't change in a
technical way.

> It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of
> autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though.

+1
A lot of people set maintenance_work_mem quite high because of the old
behaviour.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-12-03 11:37:36 Re: maintenance memory vs autovac
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-12-03 10:05:21 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Explicitly bind gettext() to the UTF8 locale when in use.