On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 at 11:11, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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
