On 10/19/13 8:22 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I don't think it's a problem that
> autovacuum_work_mem is kind of similar to vacuum_mem in name.
> maintenance_work_mem was last spelt vacuum_mem about 10 years ago.
> Enough time has passed that I think it very unlikely that someone
> might conflate the two.
What is more confusing, however, is that autovacuum_work_mem looks like
it's work_mem as used by autovacuum, where it's really
maintenance_work_mem as used by autovacuum. So maybe it should be
called autovacuum_maintenance_work_mem.
