Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
Date
Msg-id CAExHW5tVskQDGDeY__oV-dZdg13dW3esTawmee3VfwRmGQ-R9w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Add mention of execution time memory for enable_partitionwise_* GUCs
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 10:37 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2024 at 17:24, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am fine if we want to mention that the executor may consume a large
> > amount of memory when these GUCs are turned ON. Users may decide to
> > turn those OFF if they can not afford to spend that much memory during
> > execution. But I don't like tying execution time consumption with
> > default OFF.
>
> Would the attached address your concern about the reasons for defaulting to off?

Thanks. This looks better. Nitpick

+        child partitions.  With this setting enabled, the number of executor
+        nodes whose memory usage is restricted by <varname>work_mem</varname>

This sentence appears to say that the memory usage of "all" nodes is
restricted by work_mem. I think what you want to convey is - nodes,
whose memory usage is subjected to <varname>work_mem</varname>
setting, ....

Or break it into two sentences

With this setting enabled, the number of executor nodes appearing in
the final plan can increase linearly proportional to the number of
partitions being scanned. Each of those nodes may use upto
<varname>work_mem</varname> memory. This can ...

I note that the work_mem documentation does not talk about executor
nodes, instead it uses the term "query operations".

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: Is *fast* 32-bit support still important?
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: parallel GiST index builds