Re: PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE - maximum size of GIN pending list Re: HEAD seems to generate larger WAL regarding GIN index

(2014/09/09 22:17), Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I get some compiler warnings on v2 of this patch:
>>
>> reloptions.c:219: warning: excess elements in struct initializer
>> reloptions.c:219: warning: (near initialization for 'intRelOpts[15]')

> Attached is the updated version of the patch.

Thank you for updating the patch!

I took a quick review on the patch. It looks good to me, but one thing
I'm concerned about is

You wrote:
>>>> The attached patch introduces the GIN index storage parameter
>>>> "PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE" which specifies the maximum size of
>>>> GIN pending list. If it's not set, work_mem is used as that
maximum size,
>>>> instead. So this patch doesn't break the existing application which
>>>> currently uses work_mem as the threshold of cleanup operation of
>>>> the pending list. It has only not to set PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE.

As you mentioned, I think it's important to consider for the existing
applications, but I'm wondering if it would be a bit confusing users to
have two parameters, PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE and work_mem, for this
setting. Wouldn't it be easy-to-use to have only one parameter,
PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE? How about setting PENDING_LIST_CLEANUP_SIZE
to work_mem as the default value when running the CREATE INDEX command?

Sorry for the delay.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita