| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(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: | 2011-02-20 21:09:11 |
| Message-ID: | 201102202109.p1KL9CJ13430@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > 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).
>
> You seem to be confusing one limitation in one code path with the
> overall meaning of maintenance_work_mem.
Oh, OK, so sorts are limited, but not hash sizes? Are there any other
uses? Should this be documented somehow? What is the actual sort
limit?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-20 21:31:06 | Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-20 20:37:42 | Re: pg_basebackup and wal streaming |