Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=3hhc-hVi2DbxDW=AjB_7p0VRpvscrXyebTHukmfxBiw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would say that sucks, because it makes it harder to set
> maintenance_work_mem correctly.  Not sure how hard it would be to fix,
> though.

ginInsertCleanup() may now be the worst piece of code in the entire
tree, so no surprised that it gets this wrong too.

2016's commit e2c79e14d99 ripped out the following comment about the
use of maintenance_work_mem by ginInsertCleanup():

@@ -821,13 +847,10 @@ ginInsertCleanup(GinState *ginstate,
  * Is it time to flush memory to disk? Flush if we are at the end of
  * the pending list, or if we have a full row and memory is getting
  * full.
- *
- * XXX using up maintenance_work_mem here is probably unreasonably
- * much, since vacuum might already be using that much.
  */

ISTM that the use of maintenance_work_mem wasn't given that much
thought originally.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: expressive test macros (was: Report test_atomic_ops() failuresconsistently, via macros)
Next
From: Isaac Morland
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: Add uri percent-encoding for binary data