On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 03:53:38PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Sun, 19 May 2024 at 02:40, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 03:35:17PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > > > "Additionally, vacuum no longer silently imposes a 1GB tuple reference > > > limit even when maintenance_work_mem or autovacuum_work_mem are set to > > > higher values" > > > Slightly adjusted wording patch attached and applied. > > Thanks for adjusting. > > It's a minor detail, but I'll mention it because you went to the > effort to adjust it away from what I'd written...
True. > I didn't make a random choice to use "or" between the two GUCs. > Changing it to "and", IMO, isn't an improvement. Using "and" implies > that the silent limited was only imposed when both of these GUCs were > set >= 1GB. That's not true. For the case we're talking about here, if > autovacuum_work_mem is set to anything apart from -1 then the value of > maintenance_work_mem does not matter. Okay, changed to "or". -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
