From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.0.6 crash |
Date: | 2006-02-09 20:45:42 |
Message-ID: | 16829.24.91.171.78.1139517942.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> > Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>> > > It doesn't seem like a bad idea to have a max_memory parameter that
>> if a
>> > > backend ever exceeded it would immediately abort the current
>> > > transaction.
>> >
>> > See ulimit (or local equivalent).
>>
>> As much as setting ulimit in shell scripts is fun, I have to admit that
>> I really don't see it happening very much.
>
> For one thing it requires admin access to the startup scripts to arrange
> this.
> And it's always cluster-wide.
>
> Having a GUC parameter would mean it could be set per-session. Even if the
> GUC
> parameter were just implemented by calling setrlimit it might be useful.
>
I don't think it needs a new GUC parameter, just having hashagg respect
work_mem would fix the problem.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-02-09 21:28:14 | Re: Server Programming in C: palloc() and pfree() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-09 20:23:59 | Re: [GENERAL] Sequences/defaults and pg_dump |