Stephen Frost wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > * Robert Schnabel (schnabelr@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > And getting back to the to-do list entry and reading the related > > posts, it appears that even if you could set work_mem that high it > > would only use 2GB anyway. I guess that was the second part of my > > question. Is that true? > > Errr, and to get back to the to-do (which I've been considering doing > something about...), it's to allow the *actual* memory usage for things > like sorts to use more than 2GB, but as others have pointed out, you can > do that by putting pgsql_tmp on a memory filesystem and letting the > sorts spill to the memory-based FS. It would be nice if the tempfs would allow us to control total temp memory usage, except it causes a failure rather than splilling to real disk. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
