On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 08:33 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > work_mem= 1 GB benefit at 8 TB
> > work_mem= 256MB benefit at 0.5 TB
> > (based upon runs on average twice size of memory, and each logical tape
> > requiring
Tom,
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've got the same problem with this that I do with the recently-proposed
> patch to fail queries with estimated cost > X --- to wit, I think it
> will result in a net *reduction* in system reliability not an improvement.
> Any such feature changes the p
Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose I could put quotas in place or something but I don't really
> have a problem with the database as a whole using up a bunch of disk
> space (hence why it's got alot of room to grow into), I just would have
> liked a "this will chew up more disk s
Greetings,
* Simon Riggs ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> work_mem= 1 GBbenefit at 8 TB
> work_mem= 256MB benefit at 0.5 TB
> (based upon runs on average twice size of memory, and each logical tape
> requiring 256KB memory, i.e. min(work_mem/4, 6) * work_mem * 2, which
> for wo
