On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
