On 10/19/13 8:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > I don't think it's a problem that > autovacuum_work_mem is kind of similar to vacuum_mem in name. > maintenance_work_mem was last spelt vacuum_mem about 10 years ago. > Enough time has passed that I think it very unlikely that someone > might conflate the two.
What is more confusing, however, is that autovacuum_work_mem looks like it's work_mem as used by autovacuum, where it's really maintenance_work_mem as used by autovacuum. So maybe it should be called autovacuum_maintenance_work_mem. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
