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

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum
Date: 2025-03-18 02:06:34
Message-ID: CAApHDvpeifrH31AVDddY0+zm9a7mum3UxfFTS3N9bAzF=SOoHA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 05:49, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I've attached the patch. I added the minimum regression tests for that.

I think the change to vacuumlazy.c is ok. The new test you've added
creates a table called pvactst2 but then adds a test that uses the
pvactst table.

Did you mean to skip the DROP TABLE pvactst2;?

Is there a reason to keep the maintenance_work_mem=64 for the
subsequent existing test?

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-03-18 02:17:31 Re: vacuumdb changes for stats import/export
Previous Message Euler Taveira 2025-03-18 01:05:16 Re: Separate GUC for replication origins