Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoCtd7MrgsZrWfvKj9CtFGyJd_G3N1uU3aRE0hqJU8_=6w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:06 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Fixed.

> Did you mean to skip the DROP TABLE pvactst2;?

Yes, added DROP TABLE pvactst2.

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

No, I reset it immediately after tests for pvactst2.

I've attached the updated patch.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid invalidating all RelationSyncCache entries on publication
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding a '--clean-publisher-objects' option to 'pg_createsubscriber' utility.