Re: using a lot of maintenance_work_mem

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.

-- 
greg