Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg
Date
Msg-id 1417497257.5584.5.camel@jeff-desktop
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2014-11-30 at 17:49 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > I can also just move isReset there, and keep mem_allocated as a uint64.
> > That way, if I find later that I want to track the aggregated value for
> > the child contexts as well, I can split it into two uint32s. I'll hold
> > off any any such optimizations until I see some numbers from HashAgg
> > though.
>
> I took a quick look at memory-accounting-v8.patch.
>
> Is there some reason why mem_allocated is a uint64? All other things
> being equal, I'd follow the example of tuplesort.c's
> MemoryContextAllocHuge() API, which (following bugfix commit
> 79e0f87a1) uses int64 variables to track available memory and so on.

No reason. New version attached; that's the only change.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis



Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal : REINDEX SCHEMA