Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Zki98neenJpBqozI@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 03:35:17PM +1200, David Rowley wrote: > On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 14:48, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:13:14AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > > Also +1 on the Sawada/Naylor change being on the highlight section of > > > the release (as David suggested upthread). > > > > Agreed, I went with the attached applied patch. > > +Allow vacuum to more efficiently store tuple references and remove > its memory limit (Masahiko Sawada, John Naylor) > +</para> > > I don't want it to seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'd drop the " > and remove its memory limit" > > +<para> > +Specifically, maintenance_work_mem and autovacuum_work_mem can now be > configured to use more than one gigabyte of memory. WAL traffic > caused by vacuum is also more compact. > > I'd say the first sentence above should be written as: > > "Additionally, vacuum no longer silently imposes a 1GB tuple reference > limit even when maintenance_work_mem or autovacuum_work_mem are set to > higher values" > > It's not "Specifically" as the "more efficiently store tuple > references" isn't the same thing as removing the 1GB cap. Also, there > was never a restriction in configuring maintenance_work_mem or > autovacuum_work_mem to values higher than 1GB. The restriction was > that vacuum was unable to utilize anything more than that. Slightly adjusted wording patch attached and applied. My deep apologies for the delay in addressing this. I should have done it sooner. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: