On 2017-02-13 23:01:26 -0500, Michael Day wrote:
> Sorry to pester, but I’m not sure how bugs like this are tracked over longer periods of time. The discussion around
possiblefixes for this went above my pay grade, and I’m wondering whether a fix was ever released. If not, is there any
wayfor me to know when it does get fixed other than reviewing release notes?
It's still being reviewed (and changes are being made). I'm
unfortunately doubtful that we can make that into a small enough change
to release in the back-branches, i.e. it'd only be in the next major
version of postgres.
What you could do in your release, is to increase the default limits at
the top of reorderbuffer.c:
static const Size max_cached_changes = 4096 * 2;
static const Size max_cached_tuplebufs = 4096 * 2; /* ~8MB */
static const Size max_cached_transactions = 512;
using higher limits there will mean memory usage won't go down below
that amount of memory (within one session).
And yes, unfortunately reviewing release notes and/or this thread, is
what you'll have to resort to.
Regards,
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
