On 19.5.2014 22:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz> writes:
>> On 18.5.2014 20:49, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> With both of these things fixed, I'm not seeing any significant memory
>>> bloat during the first parallel group of the regression tests. I don't
>>> think I'll have the patience to let it run much further than that
>>> (the uuid and enum tests are still running after an hour :-().
>
>> BTW, I see this was applied to HEAD only. Shouldn't this be applied to
>> the other branches too?
>
> I intentionally didn't do that, first because I have only a limited
> amount of confidence in the patch, and second because I don't think
> it matters for anything except CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY testing.
> Which surely you're not going to do in the back branches?
Yes, I'm running this on HEAD only.
I was however wondering if this might be related to OOM errors a few
local users reported to us. IIRC they've been using temporary tables
quite heavily - not sure if that could be related.
regards
Tomas
