Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpeifrH31AVDddY0+zm9a7mum3UxfFTS3N9bAzF=SOoHA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 05:49, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've attached the patch. I added the minimum regression tests for that.

I think the change to vacuumlazy.c is ok. The new test you've added
creates a table called pvactst2 but then adds a test that uses the
pvactst table.

Did you mean to skip the DROP TABLE pvactst2;?

Is there a reason to keep the maintenance_work_mem=64 for the
subsequent existing test?

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Euler Taveira"
Date:
Subject: Re: Separate GUC for replication origins
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuumdb changes for stats import/export