On 19 August 2015 at 12:55, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> 2015-08-19 20:12 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>: > > On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> I see two ways to fix this: > >> > >> (1) enforce the 1GB limit (probably better for back-patching, if that's > >> necessary) > >> > >> (2) make it work with hash tables over 1GB > >> > >> I'm in favor of (2) if there's a good way to do that. It seems a bit > >> stupid not to be able to use fast hash table because there's some > artificial > >> limit. Are there any fundamental reasons not to use the > >> MemoryContextAllocHuge fix, proposed by KaiGai-san? > > > > > > If there are no objections, I will apply the patch for 2) to HEAD and > > backpatch to 9.5. > > > Please don't be rush. :-) > Please explain what rush you see? > It is not difficult to replace palloc() by palloc_huge(), however, it may > lead > another problem once planner gives us a crazy estimation. > Below is my comment on the another thread. > Yes, I can read both threads and would apply patches for each problem. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
