Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1238094164.16568.545.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum (Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 19:46 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Why do we have separate parameters for autovacuum and vacuum, except for > > maintenance_work_mem? > > > > Should we also have autovacuum_work_mem? > > We already discussed it here: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49353A69.20001@hagander.net > > It resulted in a doc patch - not sure it's sufficient but it's > interesting to read this thread before discussing further. Hmmm, OK, read that, thanks. Must have missed that thread earlier. Tom was asking for evidence of a need for them to be different. I don't see it as a case that requires performance results. I agree with Magnus' original reasoning: we can have more than one autovacuum process, so we may have autovacuum_max_workers active and so the work mem they use must be smaller. For maintenance_work_mem we would typically only have one session using it at any time, so we either have to start hardcoding the value in scripts or accept the fact it has been set lower. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: