On Thu, 17 Oct 2019, 14:59 Amit Kapila, <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:27 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> > wrote: > > > > > > On 17/10/2019 05:31, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > > > The patch looks good to me. I have slightly modified the comments > and > > > > removed unnecessary initialization. > > > > > > > > Heikki, are you fine me committing and backpatching this to 12? Let > > > > me know if you have a different idea to fix. > > > > > > Thanks! Looks good to me. Did either of you test it, though, with a > > > multi-pass vacuum? > > > > From my side, I have tested it with the multi-pass vacuum using the > > gist index and after the fix, it's using expected memory context. > > > > I have also verified that, but I think what additionally we can test > here is that without the patch it will leak the memory in > TopTransactionContext (CurrentMemoryContext), but after patch it > shouldn't leak it during multi-pass vacuum. > > Make sense to me, I will test that by tomorrow.
