Re: autovacuum_work_mem

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

+1. If changing at all, then maybe just "autovacuum_mem"? It's not
like there's a different parameter to control a different kind of
memory in autovac, is there?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/