From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements |
Date: | 2015-10-02 21:04:59 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZTJEPY7A5HBJMB-s6rhZxk8LXiaxZPAMDytBpLs3P60Tw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> My guess is that this very large query involved a very large number of
>> constants, possibly contained inside an " IN ( )". Slight variants of
>> the same query, that a human would probably consider to be equivalent
>> have caused artificial pressure on garbage collection.
>
> I could write a patch to do compaction in-place.
In the end, I decided on a simpler approach to fixing this general
sort of problem with the attached patch. See commit message for
details.
I went this way not because compaction in-place was necessarily a bad
idea, but because I think that a minimal approach will work just as
well in real world cases.
It would be nice to get this committed before the next point releases
are tagged, since I've now heard a handful of complaints like this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Fix-pg_stat_statements-garbage-collection-bugs.patch | text/x-patch | 7.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-10-02 21:18:46 | Re: pg_stat_statements query jumbling question |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-10-02 20:57:44 | Re: Confusing remark about UPSERT in fdwhandler.sgml |