| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Frederik Ramm <frederik(at)remote(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Date: | 2011-02-20 15:05:15 |
| Message-ID: | 138B4975E40560059F90C62B@amenophis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 20. Februar 2011 15:48:06 +0100 Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
wrote:
>> Well, I figure it will be hard to allow larger maximums, but can we make
>> the GUC variable maximums be more realistic? Right now it is
>> MAX_KILOBYTES (INT_MAX).
>
> This is something i proposed some time ago, too. At least, it will stop
> us from promising something which is maintenance_work_mem not able to
> deliver.
Hmm, on further reflection a better option might be to just document this
behavior more detailed. I could imagine that making maintenance_work_mem
having a hard upper limit would break countless SQL scripts, where it was
set just high enough in the hope of speed increase...
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-20 15:08:38 | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2011-02-20 14:48:06 | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |