Re: maintenance memory vs autovac - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Guillaume Smet
Subject Re: maintenance memory vs autovac
Date
Msg-id 1d4e0c10812030209p3137d226pf62d049c02221bf6@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: maintenance memory vs autovac  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: maintenance memory vs autovac  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: maintenance memory vs autovac  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
>> we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
>
> It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
> process.

I agree. What I implied is that by default you have 3 autovacuum
workers so the behaviour has changed, even if it didn't change in a
technical way.

> It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of
> autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though.

+1
A lot of people set maintenance_work_mem quite high because of the old
behaviour.

-- 
Guillaume


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Explicitly bind gettext() to the UTF8 locale when in use.
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: maintenance memory vs autovac