| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |
| Date: | 2012-10-16 20:47:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_VHZAm4MB4QjEwGuq9QnmhnGe+4bMN976GZmBTVovS64g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16 October 2012 14:24, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> If you describe in detail that it is a heuristic and why that is
> proposed over other approaches that should be sufficient for future
> generations to read and understand.
I've done so, in the attached revision. Things have been simplified
somewhat too.
The same basic strategy for sizing the tuplesort memtuples array in
also exists in tuplestore. I wonder if we should repeat this there? I
suppose that that could follow later.
The patch will now been marked "ready for committer". Does this need
doc changes, in light of what is arguably a behavioural difference?
You only mentioned release notes.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| sortmem_grow-v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2012-10-16 21:18:47 | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-16 20:18:00 | Re: embedded list |