On 2024-07-22 12:00:51 -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:49 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be > > >> set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that > > >> we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think > > >> this would be worth it? > > > > > No, I don't. > > > > I don't see why that's not a good idea. > > I don't think that it's worth going to that trouble. Testing multiple > passes isn't hard -- not in any real practical sense.
It's hard by now (i.e. 17+) because you need substantial amounts of rows to be able to trigger it which makes it a hard fight to introduce. And the cost of setting the GUC limit lower is essentially zero. What's the point of having such a high lower limit? Greetings, Andres Freund
