| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Rethinking autovacuum.c memory handling |
| Date: | 2017-09-25 05:12:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTrrZCfw_CA6OwYXc0JAHk9QxLkxQw2-6Vb3rdmOdHQEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I have spent some time looking at your patch and testing it. This
>> looks sane. A small comment that I have would be to add an assertion
>> at the top of perform_work_item to be sure that it is called in the
>> memory context of AutovacMemCxt.
>
> Done like that, thanks for reviewing!
Thanks for considering my idea.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-09-25 05:26:07 | Re: Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2017-09-25 04:50:38 | Re: VACUUM and ANALYZE disagreeing on what reltuples means |