On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Maybe, but only if it actually had reason to use a ton of memory ---
> that is, it were recycling a very large number of tuples in a single
> table. IIRC that didn't seem to be the case here.
Ah, that's what I was trying to ask. I didn't know if the memory was
actually taken by vacuum at the beginning (like shared memory is) or
what-all happened.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
