| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Use BumpContext contexts for TupleHashTables' tablecxt |
| Date: | 2025-10-26 22:16:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrvDiETQo=xbHj9fCW=wPwMAgyouEo0ZQ5Wra_ARgvC_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 at 11:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Related to this, while I was chasing Jeff's complaint I realized that
> the none-too-small simplehash table for this is getting made in the
> query's ExecutorState. That's pretty awful from the standpoint of
> being able to blame memory consumption on the hash node. I'm not
> sure though if we want to go so far as to make another context just
> for the simplehash table. We could keep it in that same "tablectx"
> at the price of destroying and rebuilding the simplehash table, not
> just resetting it, at each node rescan. But that's not ideal either.
I don't think you could do that and have your patch as SH_GROW() needs
to pfree the old bucket array after rehashing, which bump won't like.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-10-26 22:19:53 | Re: Should HashSetOp go away |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-10-26 22:14:32 | Re: Should HashSetOp go away |