Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
One concern I have about this is people asking how come when I
runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
tale 5x minutes?
As long as the default is the same, people would get at least an
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual
evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than
other processes?
IMHO, the point is that we were used to
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
process.
I agree. What I
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of
autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though.
+1
A lot of people set maintenance_work_mem
Gregory Stark wrote:
Guillaume Smet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's probably worthwhile to add a note about the effects of
autovacuum around the documentation of maintenance_work_mem, though.
+1
A lot of people set
Guillaume Smet wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The autovacuum workers change that and make it a default behaviour (as
we can have 3*maintenance_work_mem by default).
It's still one per process, it's just that autovac uses more than one
process.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual
evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than
other processes?
The use-case that made me think of that is one with lots of autovac
workers in a system
Would it make sense to be able to configure maintenance_work_mem
specifically for the autovacuum processes? Given that there can be a
number of them, it might be good to be able to have one default for all
*other* processes, and a separate one from the ones kicked off by autovac?
//Magnus
--
Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
the number of workers for autovacuum.
This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this once?
One concern I have about this is people asking how come when I
runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when
Greg Stark wrote:
Seems it would make more sense to just divide maintenance_work_mem by
the number of workers for autovacuum.
While that would be a solution for some cases, it is far from certain
that's what you'd actually want.
This sounds familiar. Didn't we already decide to do this once?
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Stark wrote:
One concern I have about this is people asking how come when I
runvacuum manually it takes x minutes but when autovacuum runs it it
tale 5x minutes?
As long as the default is the same, people would get at least an initial
clue that
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems like mostly a confusion-generator to me. Is there any actual
evidence that autovac should use a different maintenance_work_mem than
other processes?
IMHO, the point is that we were used to consider the
12 matches
Mail list logo
