| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Accounting |
| Date: | 2019-07-22 16:33:03 |
| Message-ID: | 176131d7f021b58cb1421ccdde4d192f7703e9ce.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 18:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> * I changed it to only update mem_allocated for the current
> > > context,
> > > not recursively for all parent contexts. It's now up to the
> > > function
> > > that reports memory usage to recurse or not (as needed).
> >
> > Is that OK for memory bounded hash aggregation? Might there be a
> > lot
> > of sub-contexts during hash aggregation?
> >
>
> There shouldn't be, at least not since b419865a814abbc. There might
> be
> cases where custom aggregates still do that, but I think that's
> simply a
> design we should discourage.
Right, I don't think memory-context-per-group is something we should
optimize for.
Discussion:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3839201.Nfa2RvcheX%40techfox.foxi
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5334D7A5.2000907%40fuzzy.cz
Commit link:
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-22 16:39:01 | Re: initdb recommendations |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-22 16:25:05 | Re: initdb recommendations |