| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel |
| Date: | 2016-04-12 16:30:26 |
| Message-ID: | 570D22A2.2090102@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> This restricts the memory used by ordinary backends when doing the
> cleanup to be work_mem. Shouldn't we let them use
> maintenance_work_mem? Only one backend can be doing this clean up of a
> given index at any given time, so we don't need to worry about many
> concurrent allocations of maintenance_work_mem. This seems very
> similar in spirit to index creation, where a backend is allowed to use
> maintenance_work_mem.
Because it could be a several indexes in one pg instance. And each cleaner could
eat maintenance_work_mem.
>
> Also, do we plan on backpatching this? While there are no known
Yes
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2016-04-12 16:32:38 | Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-12 16:28:10 | Re: Some other things about contrib/bloom and generic_xlog.c |