Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum

From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum
Date: 2009-03-26 18:46:31
Message-ID: 1d4e0c10903261146t7de7f195v8d2f392779f56f2b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Why do we have separate parameters for autovacuum and vacuum, except for
> maintenance_work_mem?
>
> Should we also have autovacuum_work_mem?

We already discussed it here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49353A69.20001@hagander.net

It resulted in a doc patch - not sure it's sufficient but it's
interesting to read this thread before discussing further.

--
Guillaume

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-26 18:52:28 8.4 open items list updated
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-03-26 18:34:53 maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum