Re: Questions/Observations related to Gist vacuum

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.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com