On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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.
I think I prefer autovacuum_work_mem. I don't think sticking the word maintenance in there is really adding much in the way of clarity. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers