Thread: 9.3 release notes and maintenance_work_mem

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Shouldn't the reference to work_mem here:

"Allow in-memory sorts to use their full memory allocation (Jeff Janes)"
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/release-9-3.html#AEN114956

actually be referencing maintenance_work_mem?

Joe

- --
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=o9zX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/24/2014 08:25 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> Shouldn't the reference to work_mem here:
>
> "Allow in-memory sorts to use their full memory allocation (Jeff
> Janes)"
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/release-9-3.html#AEN114956
>
>  actually be referencing maintenance_work_mem?

Or I suppose, rather, shouldn't it be referring to both?

Joe

- --
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=hTeu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>> Shouldn't the reference to work_mem here:
>>
>> "Allow in-memory sorts to use their full memory allocation (Jeff
>> Janes)"
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/release-9-3.html#AEN114956
>>
>> actually be referencing maintenance_work_mem?

> Or I suppose, rather, shouldn't it be referring to both?

In principle I suppose someone might've set maintenance_work_mem with an
eye on the space needed to build specific indexes, but it seems relatively
unlikely compared to the work_mem scenario.  I think it'd just confuse
people to mention both parameters.

            regards, tom lane