| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.3 release notes and maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2014-04-25 14:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | 6584.1398436414@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Shouldn't the reference to work_mem here:
>>
>> "Allow in-memory sorts to use their full memory allocation (Jeff
>> Janes)"
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/release-9-3.html#AEN114956
>>
>> actually be referencing maintenance_work_mem?
> Or I suppose, rather, shouldn't it be referring to both?
In principle I suppose someone might've set maintenance_work_mem with an
eye on the space needed to build specific indexes, but it seems relatively
unlikely compared to the work_mem scenario. I think it'd just confuse
people to mention both parameters.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-04-30 14:18:22 | Re: Add link to partial unique index from Constraints (5.3) |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2014-04-25 03:59:16 | Re: 9.3 release notes and maintenance_work_mem |