Guillaume Smet wrote: > 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).
It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one process. It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
