On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 23:31 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > I had a look at the patch in [1] and I find it a bit weird that we'd > write the following about autovacuum_work_mem in our docs: > > + <para> > + Note that <command>VACUUM</command> has a hard-coded limit of 1GB > + for the amount of memory used, so setting > + <varname>autovacuum_work_mem</varname> higher than that has no > effect. > + </para> > > Since that setting is *only* used for auto vacuum, why don't we just > limit the range of the GUC to 1GB? > > Of course, it wouldn't be wise to backpatch the reduced limit of > autovacuum_work_mem as it might upset people who have higher values in > their postgresql.conf when their database fails to restart after an > upgrade. I think what might be best is just to reduce the limit in > master and apply the doc patch for just maintenance_work_mem in all > supported versions. We could just ignore doing anything with > autovacuum_work_mem in the back branches and put it down to a > historical mistake that can't easily be fixed now. > > I've attached what I came up with. > > What do you think? > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/514fe5ce4714b7b33cb0a611f0c7b72df413bef5.camel%40cybertec.at
I think that is much better. I am fine with that patch. Yours, Laurenz Albe
