Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to me that this limit has anything to do with anything,
>> and the comment claiming only that it's "noncritical" isn't helping.
> You've not understood the problem at all. The only thing that's
> critical is that the calculation not fail at all, through a later
> availMem that is < 0 (i.e. a LACKMEM() condition).
I see. The comment could do with a bit of rewriting, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers