| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Have vacuum emit a warning when it runs out of maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2007-05-12 21:03:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20070512210353.GL52939@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 07:57:44PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Or we could switch to a more compact representation of the dead tuples,
> and not need such a big maintenance_work_mem in the first place.
Sure, but even with a more compact representation you can still run out
of maintenance_work_mem... unless we allow this to spill to disk. At
first guess that sounds insane, but if you've got a large enough set of
indexes it *might* actually be faster.
Either way, as long as maintenance_work_mem is an issue I think we need
a way to warn users.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2007-05-12 21:19:48 | Performance monitoring (was: [PATCHES] Logging checkpoints and other slowdown causes) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-12 19:45:32 | Re: Have vacuum emit a warning when it runs out of maintenance_work_mem |