| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum |
| Date: | 2025-03-10 02:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpykPiYVueziqMVdUBShhn096uPTo3gTgYZkm-Xth11qw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 at 10:30, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Could you do something similar to what's in hash_agg_check_limits()
> where we check we've got at least 1 item before bailing before we've
> used up the all the prescribed memory? That seems like a safer coding
> practise as if in the future the minimum usage for a DSM segment goes
> above 256KB, the bug comes back again.
FWIW, I had something like the attached in mind.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ensure_weve_at_least_one_page_before_vacuum_index_cleanup.patch | application/octet-stream | 1014 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Wienhold | 2025-03-10 02:46:05 | Re: CREATE OR REPLACE MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2025-03-10 01:45:21 | Re: maintenance_work_mem = 64kB doesn't work for vacuum |