| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 12:28:03 |
| Message-ID: | 49367B53.2050206@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> 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.
How about something as simple as this?
//Magnus
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| maintmem.diff | text/x-diff | 577 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-03 12:37:36 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-12-03 12:20:15 | snapshot leak and core dump with serializable transactions |