On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual > evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than > other processes?
IMHO, the point is that we were used to consider the maintenance_work_mem as a "one process at a time" thing. Even if it's not really true, we usually didn't do maintenance task on a concurrent basis. The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default). >From my point of view, the best solution would be to share the maintenance_work_mem amongst all the workers but I suppose it's not technically possible. -- Guillaume -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
