Magnus Hagander wrote: > Tom Lane 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? > > The use-case that made me think of that is one with lots of autovac > workers in a system with lots of small tables in different databases.
Another thing to consider here is that lazy vacuum will scale down its memory usage depending on table size. > Turns out I read the documentation for autovac wrong. I understood that > if I wanted it to look at 1000 databases at once, I needed > autovac_workers at 1000. Talked a bit offlist with Alvaro and realized > that's not what it is, but that the documentation is a bit unclear on > that - will work on fixing that. Yeah, Rob Treat has also asked me twice about this, so it's probably worth rewriting. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
