On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 23:44, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 22:38, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I could do with a 2nd opinion about if we should just adjust the > > maximum value for the autovacuum_work_mem GUC to 1GB in master. > > > > I'm also not sure if since we'd not backpatch the GUC max value > > adjustment if we need to document the upper limit in the manual. > > I was just looking at this again and I see that GIN indexes are able > to use more than 1GB of memory during VACUUM. That discovery makes me > think having the docs say that vacuum cannot use more than 1GB of > memory is at best misleading and more likely just incorrect.
The attached patch aims to put right where I went wrong with the documentation about vacuum/autovacuum only using maintainance_work_mem memory for dead tuple collection. I plan to push this and backpatch to 9.6 shortly unless there are any better ideas. What's in there right now is wrong and I want that fixed before the cut-off for the next set of bug fix releases. David
fix_wrong_documentation_on_vacuum_mem_limits.patch
Description: Binary data
