Re: [HACKERS] maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?

2007-11-27 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Montag, November 26, 2007 21:41:33 +0100 I wrote: --On Montag, November 26, 2007 13:02:14 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... But isn't it worth to special case the code in grow_memtuples() (and maybe other places where sort is likely to

Re: [HACKERS] maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?

2007-11-26 Thread Bernd Helmle
--On Montag, November 26, 2007 13:02:14 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... But isn't it worth to special case the code in grow_memtuples() (and maybe other places where sort is likely to use more RAM), so that we can remove this constraint on

Re: [HACKERS] maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?

2007-11-26 Thread Tom Lane
Bernd Helmle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... But isn't it worth to special case the > code in grow_memtuples() (and maybe other places where sort is likely to > use more RAM), so that we can remove this constraint on 64-Bit systems with > many RAM built in? Or am I missing something very impor

[HACKERS] maintenance_work_mem memory constraint?

2007-11-26 Thread Bernd Helmle
While supporting a customer to increase recovery performance from its backups i just realized that PostgreSQL never uses big maintenance_work_mem settings. Even giving 10GB of RAM to maintenance_work_mem results in using a fraction of memory (it switches to external sort after using around 2 GB