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 once? Could be my google-fu is off today... > 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 clue that it might have something to do with them changing a configuration parameter... //Magnus > On 2 Dec 2008, at 01:38 PM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
