Re: maintenance memory vs autovac
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: maintenance memory vs autovac |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 49367B53.2050206@hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: maintenance memory vs autovac ("Guillaume Smet" <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Guillaume Smet wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> 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 implied is that by default you have 3 autovacuum > workers so the behaviour has changed, even if it didn't change in a > technical way. > >> 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 quite high because of the old > behaviour. How about something as simple as this? //Magnus *** doc/src/sgml/config.sgml --- doc/src/sgml/config.sgml *************** *** 881,886 **** SET ENABLE_SEQSCAN TO OFF; --- 881,891 ---- than <varname>work_mem</varname>. Larger settings might improve performance for vacuuming and for restoring database dumps. </para> + <para> + Note that when autovacuum runs, up to + <xref linkend="guc-autovacuum-max-workers"> times this memory may be + allocated, so be careful not to set the default value too high. + </para> </listitem> </varlistentry>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: