| From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem |
| Date: | 2023-04-24 16:20:08 |
| Message-ID: | 62176445-FB53-4D0C-8AD1-EF74963AE6D2@amazon.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Based on the feedback, here is a v1 of the suggested doc changes.
I modified Gurjeets suggestion slightly to make it clear that a specific
query execution could have operations simultaneously using up to
work_mem.
I also added the small hash table memory limit clarification.
Regards,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v1-0001-Fix-documentation-for-work_mem.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2023-04-24 16:30:19 | Re: [PATCH] Extend the length of BackgroundWorker.bgw_library_name |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-24 16:09:45 | Re: Should we remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age? |