Re: OOM in hash join

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OOM in hash join
Date: 2023-04-14 12:46:09
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJxn1fOTtLU07rrzUrnMuuG6yzu+qBUmyiWgJdacD4fHw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:43 PM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
<jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> wrote:
> Would you be able to test the latest patchset posted [1] ? This does not fix
> the work_mem overflow, but it helps to keep the number of batches
> balanced and acceptable. Any feedback, comment or review would be useful.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20230408020119.32a0841b%40karst#616c1f41fcc10e8f89d41e8e5693618c

Hi Jehan-Guillaume. I hadn't paid attention to that thread before
probably due to timing and the subject and erm ETOOMANYTHREADS.
Thanks for all the work you've done to study this area and also review
and summarise the previous writing/patches/ideas.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2023-04-14 12:50:55 Re: postgres_fdw: wrong results with self join + enable_nestloop off
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2023-04-14 12:43:53 Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session