On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:18:30PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 19:41, Guillaume Smet wrote: > > On 5/9/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Any time this happens it's generally a nasty surprise for users. > > > > > > Really? Running out of work memory is expected on large tables. > > > > Sure. Perhaps we should find a better error message but it's an > > interesting information. Personnaly, I try to choose a sane value > > depending on my database but I'm never sure it's really sufficient or > > if I added 100MB it would have made a real difference.
Unfortunately, a lot of users aren't as knowledgeable as folks here, that's why I made it a warning and gave it a hint. But if people think that's too high a level we can change it to something lower... > If we were going to implement this (and I'm a tad skeptical as well), > wouldn't > it be better if the warning occured at the end of vacuum, and told you how > much memory was actually needed, so you'd know what maintainence_work_mem > should be. Maybe... the problem is that for really large tables you simply won't have a choice; it will have to fall to disk. So I think we'd have to keep per-table warnings, unless you've got an idea for how we could account for tables that wouldn't reasonably fit? -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
