On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 23:59 +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Dawid Kuroczko wrote: > > Noooow, I know work_mem is not "total per process limit", but > > rather per sort/hash/etc operation. I know the scheme is a bit > > sketchy, but I think this would allow more memory-greedy > > operations to use memory, while taking in consideration that > > they are not the only ones out there. And that these settings > > would be more like hints than the actual limits. > > Given that we don't even control memory usage within a single process > that accuratly, it seems a bit difficult to do it across the board. You > just don't know when you start a query how much memory you're going to > use...
I know systems that do manage memory well, so I have a different perspective. It is a problem and we should look for solutions; there are always many non-solutions out there. We could, for example, allocate large query workspace out of a shared memory pool. When we have finished with it we could return it to the pool. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
