Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-03-11 Thread PG Doc comments form
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/progress-reporting.html
Description:

The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has:

"If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once per vacuum,
after the heap has been completely scanned. It may happen multiple times per
vacuum if maintenance_work_mem is insufficient to store the number of dead
tuples found."

should be something like

"If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once per vacuum,
after the heap has been completely scanned. It may happen multiple times per
vacuum if the maximum memory is insufficient to store the number of dead
tuples found.  The maximum memory is set via the maintenance_work_mem unless
it is an autovacuum then autovacuum_work_mem will be used."


Re: Invalid idle_in_transaction_session_timeout data type

2021-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
[ redirecting to pgsql-docs ]

Alex  writes:
> In my opinion, it would be more clear if "Numeric with Unit" would be
> specified on that property documentation, so that I can search more about
> what that means (eventually a link pointing to details).
> I saw "(integer)" so I assumed `show idle_in_transaction_session_timeout `
> will return an integer.

This complaint isn't totally without merit.  I wonder whether there is
any value in listing a unit-ized GUC's default unit as part of the
type info, so that we'd have entries like

work_mem  (integer, kilobytes)

statement_timeout  (integer, milliseconds)

That'd both provide some concrete info about which unit applies,
and cue unwary users that there might be more to it than just a
number.

I'm not sure whether this could replace the existing boilerplate
phrases about "If this value is specified without units, it is taken
as kilobytes", but it's sure more compact.

regards, tom lane




Re: Invalid idle_in_transaction_session_timeout data type

2021-03-11 Thread Alex

The following changes would make docs clear:
work_mem (numeric with memory unit)
statement_timeout (numeric with time unit)
,where "numeric with memory unit" and "numeric with time unit" are links
that point to "https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/config-setting.html";
Tom Lane wrote:
[ redirecting to pgsql-docs ]
Alex mailto:cdalx...@yahoo.com> > writes:
In my opinion, it would be more clear if "Numeric with Unit" would be
specified on that property documentation, so that I can search more about
what that means (eventually a link pointing to details).
I saw "(integer)" so I assumed `show idle_in_transaction_session_timeout `
will return an integer.
This complaint isn't totally without merit. I wonder whether there is
any value in listing a unit-ized GUC's default unit as part of the
type info, so that we'd have entries like
work_mem (integer, kilobytes)
statement_timeout (integer, milliseconds)
That'd both provide some concrete info about which unit applies,
and cue unwary users that there might be more to it than just a
number.
I'm not sure whether this could replace the existing boilerplate
phrases about "If this value is specified without units, it is taken
as kilobytes", but it's sure more compact.
regards, tom lane


Re: Invalid idle_in_transaction_session_timeout data type

2021-03-11 Thread Tom Lane
Alex  writes:
> The following changes would make docs clear:
> work_mem (numeric with memory unit)
> statement_timeout (numeric with time unit)

I'm not sure about "clear", but I am sure that'd be inaccurate.
We have integer GUCs and float8 GUCs, but no numeric GUCs.
I do not see a useful purpose in obscuring that distinction.

I could see using a couple more words than I suggested before:

work_mem (integer, units of kilobytes)

regards, tom lane




Re: Invalid idle_in_transaction_session_timeout data type

2021-03-11 Thread Vik Fearing
On 3/12/21 2:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alex  writes:
>> The following changes would make docs clear:
>> work_mem (numeric with memory unit)
>> statement_timeout (numeric with time unit)
> 
> I'm not sure about "clear", but I am sure that'd be inaccurate.
> We have integer GUCs and float8 GUCs, but no numeric GUCs.
> I do not see a useful purpose in obscuring that distinction.
> 
> I could see using a couple more words than I suggested before:
> 
> work_mem (integer, units of kilobytes)

This gets a little more complicated with:

shared_buffers (integer, units of BLOCKSZ)
-- 
Vik Fearing