On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 14:44, David Rowley wrote:
> I plan to push this and backpatch to 9.6 shortly unless there are any
> better ideas.
I pushed this patch. I've now marked the entry in the commitfest app
as committed too.
David
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 23:44, David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 22:38, David Rowley wrote:
> > I could do with a 2nd opinion about if we should just adjust the
> > maximum value for the autovacuum_work_mem GUC to 1GB in master.
> >
> > I'm also not sure if since we'd not backpatch the
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 22:38, David Rowley wrote:
> > I could do with a 2nd opinion about if we should just adjust the
> > maximum value for the autovacuum_work_mem GUC to 1GB in master.
> >
> > I'm also not sure if since we'd not backpatch th
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 22:38, David Rowley wrote:
> I could do with a 2nd opinion about if we should just adjust the
> maximum value for the autovacuum_work_mem GUC to 1GB in master.
>
> I'm also not sure if since we'd not backpatch the GUC max value
> adjustment if we need to document the upper li
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 at 00:40, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 23:31 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > I had a look at the patch in [1] and I find it a bit weird that we'd
> > write the following about autovacuum_work_mem in our docs:
> >
> > +
> > +Note that VACUUM has a h
On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 23:31 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> I had a look at the patch in [1] and I find it a bit weird that we'd
> write the following about autovacuum_work_mem in our docs:
>
> +
> +Note that VACUUM has a hard-coded limit of 1GB
> +for the amount of memory used
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 03:52, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> Just sending a reply to -hackers so I can add it to the commitfest.
I had a look at the patch in [1] and I find it a bit weird that we'd
write the following about autovacuum_work_mem in our docs:
+
+Note that VACUUM has a hard-co
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Latest patch looks fine to me, to be clear.
The new status of this patch is:
Should we say "currently has"?
s/Node/Note/
Other than that, +1 to the patch and +1 to backpatching.
The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author
On Wed, 2021-05-05 at 12:03 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-05-03 at 13:48 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote:
> > We should add a line that indicates that there is a limitation (that
> > should be IMO, backported to documentation of earlier versions as it
> > affects all supported versions), at
11 matches
Mail list logo
