On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Please reply to the original thread in future (even if the Reply-to
> Message-ID is the same, I see this as a separate thread).
>
sorry about that, when i added "review" to the subject gmail removed
the thread info.
for reference the origi
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> It seemed neater to me to create a new flag, so that in principle any
>> vacuum() code path can request autovacuum_work_mem, rather than having
>> lazyvacuum.c code call IsAutoVac
