Devrim G?ND?Z wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 23:24 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > But before expending time on that, I'd want to see some evidence > > that > > > it's actually helpful for production situations. I'm a bit dubious > > > that you're going to gain much here. > > > > If you want to build an index on a 500GB table and you have 1TB RAM, > > then being able to use >>1GB maintenance_work_mem can only be good, > > no? > > That would also probably speed up Slony (or similar) replication engines > in initial replication phase. I know that I had to wait a lot while > creating big indexes on a machine which had enough ram.
Well, I figure it will be hard to allow larger maximums, but can we make the GUC variable maximums be more realistic? Right now it is MAX_KILOBYTES (INT_MAX). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
