On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 10/19/13 8:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> I don't think it's a problem that
>> autovacuum_work_mem is kind of similar to vacuum_mem in name.
>> maintenance_work_mem was last spelt vacuum_mem about 10 years ago.
>> Enough time has passed that I think it very unlikely that someone
>> might conflate the two.
>
> What is more confusing, however, is that autovacuum_work_mem looks like
> it's work_mem as used by autovacuum, where it's really
> maintenance_work_mem as used by autovacuum. So maybe it should be
> called autovacuum_maintenance_work_mem.
I think I prefer autovacuum_work_mem. I don't think sticking the word
maintenance in there is really adding much in the way of clarity.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company