Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, "nikolai(dot)berkoff" <nikolai(dot)berkoff(at)pm(dot)me>, "pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem
Date: 2021-09-23 10:18:55
Message-ID: YUxUj38VIKsBPoa3@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Thanks, and +1 from me.

maintenance_work_mem would be used in the context of autovacuum if
autovacuum_work_mem is -1, but it seems to me that the suggested
wording sounds like only autovacuum_work_mem is used and that it would
never fall back to maintenance_work_mem, no? I would suggest the
addition of "if specified" in the new part within parenthesis
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erwin Brandstetter 2021-09-23 14:26:42 Typo in release notes for pg14
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2021-09-23 08:48:37 Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem