From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index?
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:09:27 -0300
Message-ID: <20181026140927.oh4gd367st47li6h@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25595.1540547983@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2018-Oct-26, Tom Lane wrote:
> After a quick look around, I think that making systable_begin/endscan
> do this is a nonstarter; there are just too many call sites that would
> be affected. Now, you could imagine specifying that indexes on system
> catalogs (in practice, only btree) have to clean up at endscan time
> but other index types don't, so that only operations that might be
> scanning user indexes need to have suitable wrapping contexts. Not sure
> there's a lot of benefit to that, though.
How about modifying SysScanDescData to have a memory context member,
which is created by systable_beginscan and destroyed by endscan?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, bruno@wolff.to, pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Should pg 11 use a lot more memory building an spgist index?
In-Reply-To: <20181026140927.oh4gd367st47li6h@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox