Or we could switch to a more compact representation of the dead tuples, and not need such a big maintenance_work_mem in the first place.

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
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?

  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to