Henrik <henke@mac.se> writes:
> I'm already started to redesign the database to avoid the hugh number
> of rows in this big table but I'm still curious why autovacuum hogs
> over 200MB when it is not running?
On what do you base that assertion?
> Is it the shared_buffers?
Well, 128M in shared buffers plus 64M maintenance_work_mem would go
a long way towards explaining a 200M process address space, but it's
hardly "hogging" the shared buffers.
regards, tom lane