Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum
Date: 2009-03-26 20:43:45
Message-ID: 49CBE901.7000309@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> I agree with Magnus' original reasoning: we can have more than one
> autovacuum process, so we may have autovacuum_max_workers active and so
> the work mem they use must be smaller. For maintenance_work_mem we would
> typically only have one session using it at any time, so we either have
> to start hardcoding the value in scripts or accept the fact it has been
> set lower.

I actually have a client who does both automated and manual vacuums.
Having two settings would definitely be convenient for them.

That said, it would be unnecessary if I could use ROLES to set
parameters more reliably ....

;-)

--Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2009-03-26 20:45:37 Re: GIN versus zero-key queries
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-03-26 20:19:04 Re: Potential problem with HOT and indexes?