On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 11/26/2014 05:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
against the schema. The client's
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
or at least to be able to limit the amount of memory that can be
On 26.11.2014 23:26, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
or at least to be able
On 11/26/2014 11:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
against the schema. The client's problem is that in trying to run the
explain, Postgres simply runs out
On 11/26/2014 05:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
or at least to be
On 11/26/2014 05:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
against the schema. The client's problem is that in trying to run the
explain, Postgres simply runs out of
