On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > I agree with Magnus' original reasoning: we can have more than one > > autovacuum process, so we may have autovacuum_max_workers active and so > > the work mem they use must be smaller. For maintenance_work_mem we would > > typically only have one session using it at any time, so we either have > > to start hardcoding the value in scripts or accept the fact it has been > > set lower. > > I actually have a client who does both automated and manual vacuums. > Having two settings would definitely be convenient for them. > > That said, it would be unnecessary if I could use ROLES to set > parameters more reliably ....
Hmmm, perhaps the right way to do this is to have a user called "autovacuum" that is used to perform autovacuums. That way we can actually get rid of a few autovacuum_* parameters without losing function, and yet add the capability to change maintenance_work_mem just for autovacuum. Avoid some special case code also, like setting of zero_damaged_pages. Seems like a nice small change for 8.4? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
