| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic |
| Date: | 2016-09-06 16:41:48 |
| Message-ID: | 24873.1473180108@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to me that this limit has anything to do with anything,
>> and the comment claiming only that it's "noncritical" isn't helping.
> You've not understood the problem at all. The only thing that's
> critical is that the calculation not fail at all, through a later
> availMem that is < 0 (i.e. a LACKMEM() condition).
I see. The comment could do with a bit of rewriting, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-06 16:42:25 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-09-06 16:21:39 | Re: Fun fact about autovacuum and orphan temp tables |