Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem

On 16.11.2010 18:12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable, but you know what would be even better? Use less 
memory in vacuum, so that it doesn't become an issue to begin with. 
There was some discussion on that back in 2007 
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-02/msg01814.php). 
That seems like low-hanging fruit, it should be simple to switch to more 
compact representation. I believe you could easily more than half the 
memory consumption in typical scenarios.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com