On 6 June 2018 at 00:57, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2018-06-06 00:53:42 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >> On 6 June 2018 at 00:45, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > On 2018-06-05 09:35:13 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >> I wonder if an aggregate might use a custom context >> >> internally (I don't recall anything like that). The accounting capability >> >> seems potentially useful for other places, and those might not use >> >> AllocSet >> >> (or at least not directly). >> > >> > Yea, that seems like a big issue. >> >> Unfortunately, at least one of the built-in ones do. See initArrayResultArr. > > I think it's ok to only handle this gracefully if serialization is > supported. > > But I think my proposal to continue use a hashtable for the already > known groups, and sorting for additional groups would largely address > that largely, right? We couldn't deal with groups becoming too large, > but easily with the number of groups becoming too large.
My concern is that only accounting memory for the group and not the state is only solving half the problem. It might be fine for aggregates that don't stray far from their aggtransspace, but for the other ones, we could still see OOM. If solving the problem completely is too hard, then a half fix (maybe 3/4) is better than nothing, but if we can get a design for a full fix before too much work is done, then isn't that better? -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
