On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:05 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > 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. >
Yes it is, it even came up at East. 1GB just doesn't cut it anymore... JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
