| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "stiening(at)comcast(dot)net" <stiening(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | BUG #8013: Memory leak |
| Date: | 2013-03-31 17:32:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yjrO-kgnhh+1CCWRE0wpMp678tup_5oR-hVAZy=pjE8w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sunday, March 31, 2013, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> A different line of thought is that you might have set work_mem to
> an unreasonably large value --- the sort step will happily try to
> consume work_mem worth of memory.
>
I don't think that that can be the problem here, because memtuples can
never be more than 1GB even if work_mem is much larger than that. Even if
his sort is using pass-by-reference (I don't think it would be), they
should be skinny enough that that limitation should prevent it from blowing
out memory.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-03-31 18:20:18 | Re: BUG #8013: Memory leak |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-31 17:16:12 | Re: BUG #8013: Memory leak |