Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic
Date
Msg-id 24873.1473180108@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: Bug in 9.6 tuplesort batch memory growth logic  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to me that this limit has anything to do with anything,
>> and the comment claiming only that it's "noncritical" isn't helping.

> You've not understood the problem at all. The only thing that's
> critical is that the calculation not fail at all, through a later
> availMem that is < 0 (i.e. a LACKMEM() condition).

I see.  The comment could do with a bit of rewriting, perhaps.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Fun fact about autovacuum and orphan temp tables
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem