| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DO with a large amount of statements get stuck with high memory consumption |
| Date: | 2016-07-18 14:05:25 |
| Message-ID: | 21397.1468850725@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> writes:
> In the meantime, would it be appropriate to backpatch the double linking
> of memory context children at this time? I believe it has had plenty of
> testing in the 9.6 cycle to be sure it didn't break anything.
I'm concerned about the ABI breakage risk from changing a data structure
as fundamental as MemoryContext. Yeah, code outside utils/mmgr probably
*shouldn't* be looking at that struct, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
In the past we've generally only taken that sort of risk when there was
no other way to fix a bug; and this patch isn't a bug fix. While this
does help performance in some corner cases, I don't think it's enough of
an across-the-board win to justify the risk of back-patching.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-07-18 14:12:13 | Re: DO with a large amount of statements get stuck with high memory consumption |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2016-07-18 14:03:46 | Re: One process per session lack of sharing |