| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Hunter <james(dot)hunter(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: "query_work_mem" GUC, to distribute working memory to the query's individual operators |
| Date: | 2025-02-25 02:54:25 |
| Message-ID: | f8501f0b50d973a71a735d134d65695df3cab64d.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2025-02-24 at 12:46 -0800, James Hunter wrote:
> Attached please find the patch set I mentioned, above, in [1]. It
> consists of 4 patches that serve as the building blocks for and a
> prototype of the "query_work_mem" GUC I proposed:
I didn't look at the details yet. But from:
I expected something much smaller in scope, where we just add a
"plan_work_mem" field to the Plan struct, copy the work_mem global GUC
to that field when we construct a Plan node, and then reference the
plan_work_mem instead of the GUC directly.
Can you give a bit more context about why we need so many changes,
including test changes?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wenhui qiu | 2025-02-25 03:30:04 | Re: Trigger more frequent autovacuums of heavy insert tables |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-02-25 02:53:12 | RE: pg_recvlogical requires -d but not described on the documentation |