| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-10-18 03:27:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoAn8Nn--VPaE78CtpobmFBDEKJS-vov6RZeYv8R2rZtKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 11:43 Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > Another idea could be each index AM tell whether it uses
> > > maintainence_work_mem or not and based on that we can do the
> > > computation (divide the maintainence_work_mem by the number of such
> > > indexes during parallel vacuum).
> >
> > FWIW, that seems like a perfectly reasonable API addition to me.
> >
>
> Thanks, Sawada-san, if you also think this API makes sense, then we
> can try to write a patch and see how it turns out?
>
>
Yeah agreed. I can write this patch next week and will
share it.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | M Tarkeshwar Rao | 2019-10-18 03:43:38 | Can you please tell us how set this prefetch attribute in following lines. |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-10-18 03:15:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |