Re: Oom on temp (un-analyzed table caused by JIT) V16.1 [Fixed Already]

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Oom on temp (un-analyzed table caused by JIT) V16.1 [Fixed Already]
Date: 2024-01-19 09:48:12
Message-ID: A6D97E29-F1A8-47BA-996F-F31730D0A818@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 19 Jan 2024, at 01:50, Kirk Wolak <wolakk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I did a little more checking and the reason I did not see the link MIGHT be because EXPLAIN did not show a JIT attempt.
> I tried to use settings that FORCE a JIT... But to no avail.

Are you sure you are running a JIT enabled server? Did you compile it yourself
or install a snapshot?

> You don't know a way to force at least the JIT analysis to happen? (because I already knew if JIT was off, the leak wouldn't happen).

If you set jit_above_cost=0 then postgres will compile a JIT enabled execution
tree. This does bring up an interesting point, I don't think there is a way
for a user to know whether the server is jit enabled or not (apart from
explaining a query with costs adjusted but that's not all that userfriendly).
Maybe we need a way to reliably tell if JIT is active or not.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2024-01-19 09:48:23 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2024-01-19 09:38:32 Re: Simplify documentation related to Windows builds