Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:48:51 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
	keisuke kuroda <keisuke.kuroda.3862@gmail.com>,
	Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	tatsuhito.kasahara.rd@hco.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs
Message-ID: <20201207144851.GA15854@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqGKkWYgbpkNkxJOO5Uto7JMs3im-x8K8qmn_f9W+wzesw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also, the comment that was in RI_ConstraintInfo now appears in
> > > RI_ConstraintParam, and the new struct (RI_ConstraintInfo) is now
> > > undocumented.  What is the relationship between those two structs?  I
> > > see that they have pointers to each other, but I think the relationship
> > > should be documented more clearly.
> >
> > I'm not sure the footprint of this patch worth doing but here is a bit
> > more polished version.
> 
> I noticed that the foreign_key test fails and it may have to do with
> the fact that a partition's param info remains attached to the
> parent's RI_ConstraintInfo even after it's detached from the parent
> table using DETACH PARTITION.

I think this bit about splitting the struct is a distraction.  Let's get
a patch that solves the bug first, and then we can discuss what further
refinements we want to do.  I think we should get your patch in
CA+HiwqEOrfN9b=f3sDmySPGc4gO-L_VMFHXLLxVmmdP34e64+w@mail.gmail.com
committed (which I have not read yet.)  Do you agree with this plan?