Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>> Hmmm ... maybe query_work_mem and maintenance_work_mem, or something
>>> similar?
>>
>> I'll go with these unless someone has another proposal ...
> The only confusion is that you can use multiple query_work_mem per
> query, but I can't think of a better name.
True. Maybe just "work_mem" and "maintenance_work_mem"?
BTW, I am going to look at whether GUC can be persuaded to continue to
allow "sort_mem" as an alternate name, if we rename it. That would
alleviate most of the backward-compatibility issues of changing such
a well-known parameter name.
regards, tom lane