| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: autovacuum_work_mem |
| Date: | 2013-10-21 13:42:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobY60p7v4AULXoQMph_Fgb1kBGvFJSpKmpG-_Kz_gpAzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-10-21 13:44:14 | Re: autovacuum_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Sawada Masahiko | 2013-10-21 13:40:21 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |