| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alexey Bashtanov <bashtanov(at)imap(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OOM on EXPLAIN with lots of nodes |
| Date: | 2015-01-13 17:13:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20150113171349.GJ1663@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> A difficulty with either your patch or my idea is that they require adding
> another field to ExplainState, which is an ABI break for any third-party
> code that might be declaring variables of that struct type. That's fine
> for HEAD but would be risky to back-patch. Any thoughts about whether we
> can get away with that (ie, anybody have an idea if there are third-party
> extensions that call explain.c)?
codesearch.debian.net shows a couple of hits for ExplainState in
multicorn (an extension for FDW from Python data sources); I didn't look
but it seems that the FDW API is using that struct.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-13 17:24:12 | Re: OOM on EXPLAIN with lots of nodes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-13 16:48:41 | Re: OOM on EXPLAIN with lots of nodes |