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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo