On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Pavan Deolasee >> <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > But I actually wonder if we are over engineering things and >> > overestimating >> > cost of memmove etc. How about this simpler approach: >> >> Don't forget that you need to handle the case where >> maintenance_work_mem is quite small. > > How small? The default IIRC these days is 64MB and minimum is 1MB. I think > we can do some special casing for very small values and ensure that things > at the very least work and hopefully don't regress for them.
Sounds like you need to handle values as small as 1MB, then. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers