| From: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: maintenance memory vs autovac |
| Date: | 2008-12-03 07:06:42 |
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10812022306w59e3f1e8ud5aa53ffe33f5b46@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual
> evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than
> other processes?
IMHO, the point is that we were used to consider the
maintenance_work_mem as a "one process at a time" thing. Even if it's
not really true, we usually didn't do maintenance task on a concurrent
basis.
The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
From my point of view, the best solution would be to share the
maintenance_work_mem amongst all the workers but I suppose it's not
technically possible.
--
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2008-12-03 07:15:51 | Re: Sync Rep: First Thoughts on Code |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-12-03 07:05:43 | Re: Hot Standby (commit fest version - v5) |