On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, maybe. What's in the back of my mind is that we may come > > across other cases besides CREATE INDEX and VACUUM that should use a > > "one-off" setting. I think it'd make more sense to have one > > parameter than keep on inventing new ones. > > > I don't know if this would apply here - but foriegn key creation also > > benefits hugely from jacking up sort_mem and you also don't do too many > > of those in parellel. > > > I'm guessing it would be quite in-elegant and kludgy to make that code > > use the bigger pool.. it would benefit restore times though. > > Actually, it wouldn't be all that hard. We could make > RI_Initial_Check() do the equivalent of "SET LOCAL work_mem" before > issuing the query, and then again afterwards to restore the prior > value. This would have no permanent effect on work_mem, because the > old value would be restored by transaction abort if the check query > fails. > > This seems like a good idea to me, so I'll do it unless I hear > objections.
any chance of having some kind of max_total_sort_mem setting to keep machines out of swap storms, or would that be a nightmare to implement? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
