Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Frederik Ramm <frederik(at)remote(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem
Date: 2011-04-10 02:05:52
Message-ID: BANLkTimvSSMhLBZ2QHeC2U7AOd7RK0Ykog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> never has been.
>

His point was he wanted to be allowed to set work_mem > 1GB. This is
going to become a bigger and bigger problem with 72-128GB and larger
machines already becoming quite standard.

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2011-04-10 02:11:23 Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Noah Misch 2011-04-10 01:57:28 Typed table DDL loose ends