Gregory Stark wrote: > "Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of >>> autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though. >> +1 >> A lot of people set maintenance_work_mem quite high because of the old >> behaviour.
<snip> > We definitely need at the very least a prominent warning in the > maintenance_work_mem documentation. Users can always raise it for manually run > commands if they're sure they're only running one at a time. Yeah. > But all of this isn't a new issue is it? I thought we've had multiple > autovacuum workers since 8.3. Have there been any complaints? Yes, that's why I brought it up. Haven't seen complaints on-list, but have heard a couple from customers off-list. Not necessarily so much complaints as "what does this mean", but questions nevertheless. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
