Re: Memory Accounting v11

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 07:27:52
Message-ID: 1436945272.4369.204.camel@jeff-desktop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Atri Sharma 2015-07-15 07:29:55 Re: Memory Accounting v11
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-07-15 07:23:10 Re: Could be improved point of UPSERT