| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
| Date: | 2024-05-19 03:53:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrR1ZQ69keUwr5_BGo2iWNqhpZooZSz2g96KnOxO0_GTw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 02:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 03:35:17PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > "Additionally, vacuum no longer silently imposes a 1GB tuple reference
> > limit even when maintenance_work_mem or autovacuum_work_mem are set to
> > higher values"
> Slightly adjusted wording patch attached and applied.
Thanks for adjusting.
It's a minor detail, but I'll mention it because you went to the
effort to adjust it away from what I'd written...
I didn't make a random choice to use "or" between the two GUCs.
Changing it to "and", IMO, isn't an improvement. Using "and" implies
that the silent limited was only imposed when both of these GUCs were
set >= 1GB. That's not true. For the case we're talking about here, if
autovacuum_work_mem is set to anything apart from -1 then the value of
maintenance_work_mem does not matter.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-05-19 05:00:00 | Re: Underscore in positional parameters? |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-05-19 03:20:53 | Minor fixes for couple some comments around MERGE RETURNING |