Why do we have separate parameters for autovacuum and vacuum, except for
maintenance_work_mem?
Should we also have autovacuum_work_mem?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why do we have separate parameters for autovacuum and vacuum, except for
maintenance_work_mem?
Should we also have autovacuum_work_mem?
We already discussed it here:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 19:46 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Why do we have separate parameters for autovacuum and vacuum, except for
maintenance_work_mem?
Should we also have autovacuum_work_mem?
We already
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
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
Simon,
Hmmm, perhaps the right way to do this is to have a user called
autovacuum that is used to perform autovacuums.
This makes sense, depending on which autovac params actually get picked
up from the session.
Seems like a nice small change for 8.4?
Hmmm. Maybe not small enough.
--On Donnerstag, März 26, 2009 13:43:45 -0700 Josh Berkus
j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I actually have a client who does both automated and manual vacuums.
Having two settings would definitely be convenient for them.
I often found people doing this running within a) their own superuser with
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
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
On 3/26/09 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggssi...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 13:43 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
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
