On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> 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. > > I think I prefer autovacuum_work_mem. I don't think sticking the word > maintenance in there is really adding much in the way of clarity.
+1. If changing at all, then maybe just "autovacuum_mem"? It's not like there's a different parameter to control a different kind of memory in autovac, is there? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
