* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Hmm ... a gig here, a gig there, pretty soon you're talking about real
> memory? He's got several sorts and hashes that are each taking over
> 100MB according to the memory context dump, so it seems impossible that
> it all fits into a strict 32-bit address space. There's surely no harm
> in double-checking the executable's file type though.
Argh, it's late and I'm not thinking. Yeah, I had seen the 100M hashes
and just wasn't thinking clearly. Sorry for the noise.
Stephen