On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Matt Magoffin <postgresql.org@msqr.us> wrote:
>> No, explain analyze for the query that wouldn't execute before but now
>> does, with, I assume, a large work_mem. I'd like to see how it
>> differes from the one with smaller work_mem.
>
> Ah, I pasted that in an earlier email, sent February 10, 2009 9:58:00 AM
> GMT+13:00... that plan was the one using still the 128MB of work_mem after
> changing the overcommit_ratio to 80.
Opps, my bad. I thought that was just explain. I'll go look.