Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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