From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Jim Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Have vacuum emit a warning when it runs out of maintenance_work_mem |
Date: | 2007-05-09 23:41:28 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10705091641m268af4abpe78e1c6da034bd49@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On 5/9/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> > Any time this happens it's generally a nasty surprise for users.
>
> Really? Running out of work memory is expected on large tables.
Sure. Perhaps we should find a better error message but it's an
interesting information. Personnaly, I try to choose a sane value
depending on my database but I'm never sure it's really sufficient or
if I added 100MB it would have made a real difference.
> > It would be nice to throw them an explicit warning that it's occurring.
>
> I think this is a bad idea. It's furthermore pretty useless in the
> autovacuum world, since no one is likely to see the warning.
IMHO we're far from having everyone using autovacuum. For instance,
for most of our customers, we prefer having a window for vacuuming
(from 3am for example) instead of having autovacuum fired in the
middle of the day during a load peak.
If we can shorten the window by having a sufficient value for
maintenance_work_mem, it's even nicer and Jim's patch could help us
with this point.
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Doran | 2007-05-10 01:59:56 | Re: Implemented current_query |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-05-09 23:18:55 | Re: Have vacuum emit a warning when it runs out of maintenance_work_mem |