On 27.11.24 16:35, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:33:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 26.11.24 14:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Since 811af9786b, the palloc'd idxkey's seem to be leaking/accumulating
throughout the command.
I noticed this on the master branch while running AN
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 04:33:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 26.11.24 14:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Since 811af9786b, the palloc'd idxkey's seem to be leaking/accumulating
> > throughout the command.
> >
> > I noticed this on the master branch while running ANALYZE on partitioned
> > t
On 26.11.24 14:56, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Since 811af9786b, the palloc'd idxkey's seem to be leaking/accumulating
throughout the command.
I noticed this on the master branch while running ANALYZE on partitioned
table with 600 attributes, even though only 6 were being analyzed.
LOG: level: 3; Bui
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 09:44:02AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Second (or 0005), an alternative to palloc is to make the converted scan
> keys a normal local variable. Then it's just a question of whether a
> smaller palloc is preferred over an over-allocated local variable. I think
> I stil
On 12.08.24 09:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 09.08.24 06:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch writes:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 08:46:35AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I propose to fix that by making a copy of the scan keys passed by
the caller
and make the modifications there.
No objection, bu
On 09.08.24 06:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Noah Misch writes:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 08:46:35AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I propose to fix that by making a copy of the scan keys passed by the caller
and make the modifications there.
No objection, but this would obsolete at least some of these
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 08:46:35AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I propose to fix that by making a copy of the scan keys passed by the caller
>> and make the modifications there.
> No objection, but this would obsolete at least some of these comments (the
> catcache.c one
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 08:46:35AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> When systable_beginscan() and systable_beginscan_ordered() choose an index
> scan, they remap the attribute numbers in the passed-in scan keys to the
> attribute numbers of the index, and then write those remapped attribute
> numbe
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:46 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I propose to fix that by making a copy of the scan keys passed by the
>> caller and make the modifications there.
> This does have the disadvantage of adding more palloc overhead.
It seems hard to believe that one m
On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:46 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> When systable_beginscan() and systable_beginscan_ordered() choose an
> index scan, they remap the attribute numbers in the passed-in scan keys
> to the attribute numbers of the index, and then write those remapped
> attribute numbers back in
10 matches
Mail list logo
