On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> It seemed neater to me to create a new flag, so that in principle any >> vacuum() code path can request autovacuum_work_mem, rather than having >> lazyvacuum.c code call IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() for the same >> purpose. To date, that's only been done within vacuumlazy.c for things >> like logging. > > Hmm. I'm not entirely sure I agree that that makes it neater :) > > We could also look at autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit etc above, but > those just override what the non-autovac parameters do. But since the > parameter is called maintenance_work_mem in that case, I think that > would make it harder to read. > > But I'd suggest just a: > int vac_work_mem = (IsAutoVacuumWorkerProcess() && autovacuum_work_mem > != -1) ? autovacuum_work_mem : maintenance_work_mem; > > and not sending around a boolean flag through a bunch of places when > it really means just the same thing,
+1 for that change. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers