Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat
Date: 2015-08-04 15:29:15
Message-ID: 27036.1438702155@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4 August 2015 at 15:18, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> The only thing that variable does is change what the pending size limit
>> is determined by. Previously it was work_mem, now it's
>> gin_pending_list_limit. Imo that has pretty much nothing to do with not
>> registering pages as free.

> We've made a change to the way GIN fast update works and that needs to be
> an effective change, not one that immediately triggers a secondary
> annoyance for the user.

Said annoyance has been there since day one, no?

> I've asked some questions; they may turn into
> actions, or not, but they are open items.

If it's not a new problem introduced by 9.5, I don't think it's
appropriate to insist that 9.5 must solve it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-08-04 15:29:39 Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2015-08-04 15:19:29 Re: Autonomous Transaction is back