| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Accounting v11 |
| Date: | 2015-07-15 07:29:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVidFijTeOXBFXoc+LzSaeARRew7cPGK8tjwLxM0xaNLYBg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 16:19 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > tuplesort.c does its own accounting, and TBH that seems like the right
> > thing to do here, too. The difficulty is, I think, that some
> > transition functions use an internal data type for the transition
> > state, which might not be a single palloc'd chunk. But since we can't
> > spill those aggregates to disk *anyway*, that doesn't really matter.
>
> So would it be acceptable to just ignore the memory consumed by
> "internal", or come up with some heuristic?
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
>
>
I think a heuristic would be more suited here and ignoring memory
consumption for internal types means that we are not making the memory
accounting useful for a set of usecases.
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yourfriend | 2015-07-15 08:10:10 | Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2015-07-15 07:27:52 | Re: Memory Accounting v11 |