From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Jeff Amiel" <becauseimjeff(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4 |
Date: | 2007-08-30 13:54:26 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0708300654r2308bdfeu8b0d879be3e0b673@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 8/30/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Note that it's much better to err on the smaller values.
>
> > Extra index pass is really no problem.
>
> I beg to differ ...
Well, if Postgres tries to cut down passes by using max memory
then admin is forced to cut down maint_mem for safety reasons...
> What this may actually suggest is that autovacuum needs its own value of
> "maintenance_work_mem", or that it should automatically divide the value
> by the authorized number of workers.
+1
Autovacuum having it's own value and cutting pieces from there
and giving to vacuums is probably the easiest path.
Then the per-backend maint_mem does not need to be large.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-08-30 13:58:20 | Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-30 13:39:52 | Re: Out of Memory - 8.2.4 |