Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:24 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 1:46 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Commit bbf668d66fbf6 (back-patched to v17) lowered the minimum
> > maintenance_work_mem to 64kB, but it doesn't work for parallel vacuum
>
> That was done in the first place to make a regression test for a bug
> fix easier, but that test never got committed. In any case I found it
> worked back in July:

Yes, I would like to keep the lower minimum. I really do have every
intention of committing that test. Apologies for taking so long.
Raising the limit to 256 kB might make the test take too long. And I
think it's nice to have that coverage (not just of the vacuum bug but
of the multi-index vacuum pass vacuum in a natural setting [as opposed
to the tidstore test module]). I don't recall if we have that
elsewhere.

- Melanie