On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:05 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > BTW, it sounded like your argument had to do with whether it would use
> > HashAgg or not -- that is *not* dependent on the per-palloc limit, and
> > never has been.
> >
>
> His point was he wanted to be allowed to set work_mem > 1GB. This is
> going to become a bigger and bigger problem with 72-128GB and larger
> machines already becoming quite standard.
>
Yes it is, it even came up at East. 1GB just doesn't cut it anymore...
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt