| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Martín Marqués <martin(dot)marques(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Update maintenance_work_mem/autovacuum_work_mem to reflect the 1GB limitation with VACUUM |
| Date: | 2021-07-07 11:44:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpGwOAvunp-E-bN_rbAs3hmxMoasm5pzkYDbf36h73s7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 22:38, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I could do with a 2nd opinion about if we should just adjust the
> maximum value for the autovacuum_work_mem GUC to 1GB in master.
>
> I'm also not sure if since we'd not backpatch the GUC max value
> adjustment if we need to document the upper limit in the manual.
I was just looking at this again and I see that GIN indexes are able
to use more than 1GB of memory during VACUUM. That discovery makes me
think having the docs say that vacuum cannot use more than 1GB of
memory is at best misleading and more likely just incorrect.
Right now I'm considering if it might just be better to revert
ec34040af and call it quits here.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | rir | 2021-07-07 16:30:09 | conventions |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-07-07 09:52:53 | Re: markdown error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-07-07 11:46:38 | [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-07-07 11:04:27 | Re: Pipeline mode and PQpipelineSync() |