From: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem |
Date: | 2023-04-22 03:36:15 |
Message-ID: | 8A8E60F6-D4A7-499D-8E4A-3D5C0F1743E1@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > especially since the next sentence uses "concurrently" to describe the
> > other case. I think we need a more thorough rewording, perhaps like
> >
> > - Note that for a complex query, several sort or hash operations might be
> > - running in parallel; each operation will generally be allowed
> > + Note that a complex query may include several sort or hash
> > + operations; each such operation will generally be allowed
> This wording doesn't seem to bring out the fact that there could be
> more than one work_mem consumer running (in-progress) at the same
> time.
Do you mean, more than one work_mem consumer running at the same
time for a given query? If so, that is precisely the point we need to convey
in the docs.
i.e. if I have 2 sorts in a query that can use up to 4MB each, at some point
in the query execution, I can have 8MB of memory allocated.
Regards,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-04-22 04:44:51 | Re: Move un-parenthesized syntax docs to "compatibility" for few SQL commands |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-22 00:12:59 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |