On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 01:58:33PM -0500, Reid Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 16:25 +0530, vignesh C wrote: > > ... > > The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a > > rebased patch: > >... > > Regards, > > Vignesh > > Per conversation in thread listed below, patches have been submitted to the > "Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be allocated to > backends" thread > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bd57d9a4c219cc1392665fd5fba61dde8027b3da.ca...@crunchydata.com
I suggest to close the associated CF entry. (Also, the people who participated in this thread may want to be included in the other thread going forward.) > 0001-Add-tracking-of-backend-memory-allocated-to-pg_stat_.patch > 0002-Add-the-ability-to-limit-the-amount-of-memory-that-c.patch > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 19:44, Reid Thompson > <reid(dot)thompson(at)crunchydata(dot)com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2022-11-27 at 09:40 -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > > > ... > > > > I still wonder whether there needs to be a separate CF entry for > > > > the 0001 patch. One issue is that there's two different lists of > > > > people involved in the threads. > > > > > > > > I'm OK with containing the conversation to one thread if everyone else > > is. If there's no argument against, then patches after today will go > > to the "Add the ability to limit the amount of memory that can be > > allocated to backends" thread > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bd57d9a4c219cc1392665fd5fba61dde8027b3da.ca...@crunchydata.com
