Re: maintenance memory vs autovac

Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
the number of workers for autovacuum.

This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this once?

One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
tale 5x minutes?"

greg

On 2 Dec 2008, at 01:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> Would it make sense to be able to configure maintenance_work_mem
> specifically for the autovacuum processes? Given that there can be a
> number of them, it might be good to be able to have one default for
> all
> *other* processes, and a separate one from the ones kicked off by
> autovac?
>
> //Magnus
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers