From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
Date: | 2013-10-10 18:47:22 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSRuPYpAeU+LDPGQEH6HapHdK5K6uziUZwYObJHBxf6+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Well, the Postgres defaults won't really change, because the default
>> vacuum_work_mem will be -1, which will have vacuum defer to
>> maintenance_work_mem. Under this scheme, vacuum only *prefers* to get
>> bound working memory size from vacuum_work_mem. If you don't like
>> vacuum_work_mem, you can just ignore it.
> While unrelated to the main topic of this thread, I think this is very
> important as well. I often have to advice people to remember to cap
> their maintenance_work_mem because of autovacuum, and to remember to
> re-tune maintenance_wokr_mem when they change the number of autovacuum
> workers.
I'll code that up at some point, then.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2013-10-10 18:48:22 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-10 18:46:23 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |