Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem

From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>
To: Tristen Raab <tristen(dot)raab(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Correct the documentation for work_mem
Date: 2023-08-01 23:59:12
Message-ID: 02DB85C7-031C-4031-BA0F-BF87D5FD4B3B@amazon.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in response and thanks for the feedback!

> I've reviewed and built the documentation for the updated patch. As it stands right now I think the documentation for this section is quite clear.

Sorry, I am not understanding. What is clear? The current documentation -or- the proposed documentation in the patch?

>> I'm wondering about adding "and more than one of these operations may
>> be in progress simultaneously". Are you talking about concurrent
>> sessions running other queries which are using work_mem too?

> This appears to be referring to the "sort and hash" operations mentioned prior.

Correct, this is not referring to multiple sessions, but a given execution could
have multiple operations that are each using up to work_mem simultaneously.

> I also agree that changing "sort or hash" to "sort and hash" is a better description.

That is addressed in the last revision of the patch.

- Note that for a complex query, several sort or hash operations might be
- running in parallel; each operation will generally be allowed
+ Note that a complex query may include several sort and hash operations,

Regards,

Sami

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2023-08-01 23:59:33 Re: Faster "SET search_path"
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2023-08-01 23:40:45 Re: pgsql: Fix search_path to a safe value during maintenance operations.