Re: maintenance memory vs autovac

Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> 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.

<snip>

> We definitely need at the very least a prominent warning in the
> maintenance_work_mem documentation. Users can always raise it for manually run
> commands if they're sure they're only running one at a time.

Yeah.

> But all of this isn't a new issue is it? I thought we've had multiple
> autovacuum workers since 8.3. Have there been any complaints?

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Haven't seen complaints on-list, but
have heard a couple from customers off-list. Not necessarily so much
complaints as "what does this mean", but questions nevertheless.

//Magnus