On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 11/26/2014 05:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
>> PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
>> against the schema. The client's problem is that
On 11/26/2014 05:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
against the schema. The client's problem is that in trying to run the
explain, Postgres simply runs out of m
On 11/26/2014 05:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
or at least to be able to limit the amoun
On 26.11.2014 23:26, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
>> it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
>> or at least to be able to limit the a
On 11/26/2014 11:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Attached is some anonymized DDL for a fairly complex schema from a
> PostgreSQL Experts client. Also attached is an explain query that runs
> against the schema. The client's problem is that in trying to run the
> explain, Postgres simply runs o
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The client's question is whether this is not a bug. It certainly seems like
> it should be possible to plan a query without chewing up this much memory,
> or at least to be able to limit the amount of memory that can be grabbed
> during plan
