scott.marlowe wrote: > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > > "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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? > > > > I don't see any reasonable way to do that. > > I didn't think there was. just hoping... :-)
Someone asked for this in Copenhagen, and I said we can't see how to do it. The only idea I had as to give the first requestor 50% of the total, then a second query 50% of the remaining memory. Is that better than what we have? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
