Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg
Date: 2014-08-16 18:00:48
Message-ID: 27159.1408212048@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> writes:
> I believe this should check parent->track_mem, just like
> update_allocation, because this way it walks all the parent context up
> to the TopMemoryContext.

TBH, I don't think this "opt-in tracking" business has been thought
through even a little bit; for example, what happens if there is a
declared-to-not-track context in between levels that are declared
to track? And it certainly has not been proven that the extra
complexity actually saves cycles rather than the reverse.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2014-08-16 21:09:11 Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2014-08-16 14:27:57 Re: replication commands and log_statements