Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-27 Thread Laurenz Albe
On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 09:25 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > WFM. > > This has been applied and backpatched as of 1ba8410. Thank you! Yours, Laurenz Albe

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-26 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 07:51:15AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > WFM. This has been applied and backpatched as of 1ba8410. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-24 Thread Michael Paquier
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:21:40PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > Good point. However, I prefer "if set". WFM. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-24 Thread Euler Taveira
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021, at 7:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > > Thanks, and +1 from me. > > maintenance_work_mem would be used in the context of autovacuum if > autovacuum_work_mem is -1, but it seems to me that the suggested > wording s

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote: > Thanks, and +1 from me. maintenance_work_mem would be used in the context of autovacuum if autovacuum_work_mem is -1, but it seems to me that the suggested wording sounds like only autovacuum_work_mem is used and that it would never f

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-23 Thread Laurenz Albe
On Wed, 2021-09-22 at 17:45 -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 10:40 AM, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > > Yes that reads better still. > I'm attaching a patch with Laurenz's words. Thanks, and +1 from me. Yours, Laurenz Albe

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-22 Thread Euler Taveira
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, at 10:40 AM, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > Yes that reads better still. I'm attaching a patch with Laurenz's words. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/ From 41f814b15349bcc8eb8ffa4624ed5af80f3476ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Euler Taveira Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-20 Thread nikolai.berkoff
> Why not keep it simple with > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once per vacuum, > > after the heap has been completely scanned. It may happen multiple times per > > vacuum if maintenance_work_mem (or, in the case of autovacuum, > > autovacuum_work_mem) is insuffici

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-20 Thread Laurenz Albe
On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 08:07 +, nikolai.berkoff wrote: > I can see in > src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c > that compute_max_dead_tuples uses autovacuum_work_mem when it is given. > > The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has: > > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once

Re: Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-09-20 Thread nikolai.berkoff
Hi, There was no follow up to my message below so I'm raising it again. I can see in src/backend/access/heap/vacuumlazy.c that compute_max_dead_tuples uses autovacuum_work_mem when it is given. > The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has: > > "If a table has any indexes, this will happen a

Missing mention of autovacuum_work_mem

2021-03-11 Thread PG Doc comments form
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/progress-reporting.html Description: The "vacuuming indexes" documentation has: "If a table has any indexes, this will happen at least once per vacuum, after the heap has been completely