Commit deb6ffd
committed
Doc: Fix misleading statement about VACUUM memory limits
In ec34040 I added a mention that there was no point in setting
maintenance_work_limit to anything higher than 1GB for vacuum, but that
was incorrect as ginInsertCleanup() also looks at what
maintenance_work_mem is set to during VACUUM and that's not limited to
1GB.
Here I attempt to make it more clear that the limitation is only around
the number of dead tuple identifiers that we can collect during VACUUM.
I've also added a note to autovacuum_work_mem to mention this limitation.
I didn't do that in ec34040 as I'd had some wrong-headed ideas about
just limiting the maximum value for that GUC to 1GB.
Author: David Rowley
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAApHDvpGwOAvunp-E-bN_rbAs3hmxMoasm5pzkYDbf36h73s7w@mail.gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 9.6, same as ec340401 parent 4a3d806 commit deb6ffd
1 file changed
+10
-4
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
1894 | 1894 | | |
1895 | 1895 | | |
1896 | 1896 | | |
1897 | | - | |
1898 | | - | |
1899 | | - | |
1900 | | - | |
| 1897 | + | |
| 1898 | + | |
| 1899 | + | |
1901 | 1900 | | |
1902 | 1901 | | |
1903 | 1902 | | |
| |||
1921 | 1920 | | |
1922 | 1921 | | |
1923 | 1922 | | |
| 1923 | + | |
| 1924 | + | |
| 1925 | + | |
| 1926 | + | |
| 1927 | + | |
| 1928 | + | |
| 1929 | + | |
1924 | 1930 | | |
1925 | 1931 | | |
1926 | 1932 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments