Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1vZbuf-00FM2W-0M
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2025 21:33:25 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-bugs-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1vZbue-00CJnC-05
	for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2025 21:33:24 +0000
Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1vZbud-00CJn4-2Y
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2025 21:33:24 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls
 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384
	(Exim 4.96)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1vZbud-002v4E-0B
	for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2025 21:33:23 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 5BRLXJmu2380299;
	Sat, 27 Dec 2025 16:33:19 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
cc: jinhui.lai@qq.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #19363: PostgreSQL shared memory exhaustion during query
 execution involving views and parallel workers
In-reply-to: <1712093.1766854937@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <19363-8dd32fc7600a1153@postgresql.org>
 <CAMbWs4_Wp7D8k53OuQNhW9=iN2NQF+W0KPD+za0ehf6-F=Dcyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1712093.1766854937@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Sat, 27 Dec 2025 12:02:17 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2380297.1766871199.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 16:33:19 -0500
Message-ID: <2380298.1766871199@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-bugs.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-bugs-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-bugs>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2380298.1766871199%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> What I'm wondering is why this plan was accepted at all.  Does PHJ
> not consider work_mem or a similar limit on hash table size?

Ah, found it.  See

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2380165.1766871097%40sss.pgh.pa.us

			regards, tom lane