Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement?

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should work_mem be stable for a prepared statement?
Date: 2025-02-27 19:06:43
Message-ID: CAKAnmmJDsTx967Mb_2de028NCwqRGuG9OVy19sd1nWTp01fM6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 1:42 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:

> It would make more sense to me if we either (a) enforced work_mem as it
> was at the time of planning; or (b) replanned if executed with a different
> work_mem (similar to how we replan sometimes with different parameters).
>

Definitely (b).

But I'm not sure whether someone might be relying on the existing behavior?
>

I cannot fathom a reason why.

Cheers,
Greg

--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-02-27 19:10:21 Re: [PROPOSAL] : Disallow use of empty column name in (column_name '') in ALTER or CREATE of foreign table.
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2025-02-27 18:58:55 Re: Update docs for UUID data type