On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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 of memory allocators is a little out of date (i.e. by a decade or 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
Beware of depending on that threshold. It varies wildly among platforms. I've seen implementations with the threshold well above 64MB. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
