Re: maintenance memory vs autovac

Greg Stark wrote:
> Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
> the number of workers for autovacuum.

While that would be a solution for some cases, it is far from certain
that's what you'd actually want.

> This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this once?

Could be my google-fu is off today...

> One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
> runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
> tale 5x minutes?"

As long as the default is the same, people would get at least an initial
clue that it might have something to do with them changing a
configuration parameter...

//Magnus

> On 2 Dec 2008, at 01:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> Would it make sense to be able to configure maintenance_work_mem
>> specifically for the autovacuum processes? Given that there can be a
>> number of them, it might be good to be able to have one default for all
>> *other* processes, and a separate one from the ones kicked off by
>> autovac?
>>
>> //Magnus
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers