On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:25:37PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/09/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > > >The assumption that each connection won't use lots of work_mem is > >also false, I think, especially in these days of connection > >poolers. > > > > > > > Andres has just been politely pointing out to me that my knowledge > of memory allocators is a little out of date (i.e. by a decade or > two), and that this memory is not in fact likely to be held for a > long time, at least on most modern systems. That undermines > completely my reasoning above. > > Given that, it probably makes sense for us to be rather more liberal > in setting work_mem that I was suggesting.
Ah, yes, this came up last year (MMAP_THRESHOLD): http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20120730161416.gb10...@momjian.us -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers