| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk |
| Date: | 2018-06-05 12:45:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20180605124538.qeavfl5drp7wfvr3@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-06-05 09:35:13 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> But I don't think we've considered copying the whole AllocSet. Maybe that
> would work, not sure.
Don't think you'd need to fully copy it - you can just have a "wrapper"
memory context implementation that does the accounting and then hands
the actual work to AllocSet. That limits some things it can account for,
but I don't see those being really relevant.
> I wonder if an aggregate might use a custom context
> internally (I don't recall anything like that). The accounting capability
> seems potentially useful for other places, and those might not use AllocSet
> (or at least not directly).
Yea, that seems like a big issue.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-05 12:49:58 | Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-05 12:42:30 | Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk |