Re: OOM in spgist insert

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-May-13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What do people think about back-patching this? In existing branches,
>> we've defined it to be an opclass bug if it fails to shorten the leaf
>> datum enough. But not having any defenses against that seems like
>> not a great idea. OTOH, the 10-cycles-to-show-progress rule could be
>> argued to be an API break.

> I think if the alternative is to throw an error, we can afford to retry
> quite a few more times than 10 in order not have that called an API
> break. Say, retry (MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF << 3) times or so (if you want to
> parameterize on maxalign). It's not like this is going to be a
> performance drag where not needed .. but I think leaving back-branches
> unfixed is not great.

Hm. Index bloat is not something to totally ignore, though, so I'm
not sure what the best cutoff is.

Anyway, here is a patch set teased apart into committable bites,
and with your other points addressed.

regards, tom lane