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
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
>>> we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
>> It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
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 l
"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
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
>> we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
>
> It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
> process.
I agree. Wha
Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>
> IMHO, the point is that we were us
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Greg Stark wrote:
>>> One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
>>> runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
>>> tale 5x minutes?"
>
>> As long as the default is the same, people woul
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
IMHO, the point is that we were used to consider the
maintenance_
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
>> runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
>> tale 5x minutes?"
> As long as the default is the same, people would get at least an initial
Greg Stark wrote:
> Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
> the number of workers for autovacuum.
While that would be a solution for some cases, it is far from certain
that's what you'd actually want.
> This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this onc
Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
the number of workers for autovacuum.
This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this once?
One concern I have about this is people asking "how come when I
runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuu
Would it make sense to be able to configure maintenance_work_mem
specifically for the autovacuum processes? Given that there can be a
number of them, it might be good to be able to have one default for all
*other* processes, and a separate one from the ones kicked off by autovac?
//Magnus
--
Sen
12 matches
Mail list logo
