Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Anton Dignös
Subject Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes
Date
Msg-id CALNdv1jAuoN3NeSR0Y3YOVSe9pW5dWcVvQ8bxYxJSxeBS3GHAQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes  (Alexander Kuzmenkov <a.kuzmenkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes  (Anton Dignös <dignoes@inf.unibz.it>)
List pgsql-hackers
>> The better alternative may be to have two temporary memory contexts,
>> one per-tuple for calling the inner consistent method and one
>> per-index-scan for the traversal memory.
>
>
> Yes, this seems to be a better way of fixing the problem without introducing
> regressions mentioned by Tom. We'd keep a separate traversal context in
> ScanOpaque and run most of the spgWalk in it, except calling storeRes in
> query context and the inner consistent method in short-lived context.

Thanks to both for the feedback.
I will work on that and come back to you.

>
> Also, I think it would be worthwhile to test the resulting patch with
> valgrind. The allocations are not very apparent in the code, so it's easy to
> miss something.
>

I tried with valgrind in the first place and didn't see any suspicious
memory leaks but I will give it another try.

Best regards,
Anton


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeevan Chalke
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw