Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, 14:59 Amit Kapila, <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:27 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 17/10/2019 05:31, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patch looks good to me. I have slightly modified the comments
> and
> > > > removed unnecessary initialization.
> > > >
> > > > Heikki, are you fine me committing and backpatching this to 12? Let
> > > > me know if you have a different idea to fix.
> > >
> > > Thanks! Looks good to me. Did either of you test it, though, with a
> > > multi-pass vacuum?
> >
> > From my side, I have tested it with the multi-pass vacuum using the
> > gist index and after the fix, it's using expected memory context.
> >
>
> I have also verified that, but I think what additionally we can test
> here is that without the patch it will leak the memory in
> TopTransactionContext (CurrentMemoryContext), but after patch it
> shouldn't leak it during multi-pass vacuum.
>
> Make sense to me, I will test that by tomorrow.