From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 9.3 release notes and maintenance_work_mem
In-reply-to: <5359DD94.1000600@joeconway.com>
References: <5359D5C4.9090509@joeconway.com> <5359DD94.1000600@joeconway.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
 message dated "Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:59:16 -0700"
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:33:34 -0400
Message-ID: <6584.1398436414@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>> Shouldn't the reference to work_mem here:
>> 
>> "Allow in-memory sorts to use their full memory allocation (Jeff
>> Janes)" 
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/release-9-3.html#AEN114956
>> 
>> actually be referencing maintenance_work_mem?

> Or I suppose, rather, shouldn't it be referring to both?

In principle I suppose someone might've set maintenance_work_mem with an
eye on the space needed to build specific indexes, but it seems relatively
unlikely compared to the work_mem scenario.  I think it'd just confuse
people to mention both parameters.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs