Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 10:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 11/16/10 9:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I'm a little skeptical about creating more memory tunables.  DBAs who
> > are used to previous versions of PG will find that their vacuum is now
> > really slow, because they adjusted maintenance_work_mem but not this
> 
> Also, generally people who are using autovacuum don't do much manual
> vacuuming, and when they do, it's easy enough to do a SET before you
> issue the VACUUM statement.
> 
> So, -1 for yet another GUC.

Agreed. If we are going to do anything, it should be pushed to a per
object level (at least table) with ALTER TABLE. We don't need yet
another global variable.

JD

-- 
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt