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.