2015-08-19 20:12 GMT+09:00 Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 12 June 2015 at 00:29, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> >> I see two ways to fix this: >> >> (1) enforce the 1GB limit (probably better for back-patching, if that's >> necessary) >> >> (2) make it work with hash tables over 1GB >> >> I'm in favor of (2) if there's a good way to do that. It seems a bit >> stupid not to be able to use fast hash table because there's some artificial >> limit. Are there any fundamental reasons not to use the >> MemoryContextAllocHuge fix, proposed by KaiGai-san? > > > If there are no objections, I will apply the patch for 2) to HEAD and > backpatch to 9.5. > Please don't be rush. :-)
Please explain what rush you see?
It is not difficult to replace palloc() by palloc_huge(), however, it may lead another problem once planner gives us a crazy estimation. Below is my comment on the another thread.
Yes, I can read both threads and would apply patches for each problem.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
