On Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 11:43 Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> > > Another idea could be each index AM tell whether it uses
> > > maintainence_work_mem or not and based on that we can do the
> > > computation (divide the maintainen
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 3:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
> > Another idea could be each index AM tell whether it uses
> > maintainence_work_mem or not and based on that we can do the
> > computation (divide the maintainence_work_mem by the number of such
> > indexes during parallel
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:05 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is not that currentl
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It is not that currently, other indexes don't use any additional
> > > memory (except for maintainence_work_m
Amit Kapila writes:
> Another idea could be each index AM tell whether it uses
> maintainence_work_mem or not and based on that we can do the
> computation (divide the maintainence_work_mem by the number of such
> indexes during parallel vacuum).
FWIW, that seems like a perfectly reasonable API a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is not that currently, other indexes don't use any additional
> > memory (except for maintainence_work_mem). For example, Gist index
> > can use memory for collecting empt
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:07 AM Greg Stark wrote:
>
> It's a bit unfortunate that we're doing the pending list flush while the
> vacuum memory is allocated at all. Is there any reason other than the way the
> callbacks are defined that gin doesn't do the pending list flush before
> vacuum does
It's a bit unfortunate that we're doing the pending list flush while the
vacuum memory is allocated at all. Is there any reason other than the way
the callbacks are defined that gin doesn't do the pending list flush before
vacuum does the heap scan and before it allocates any memory using
maintenan
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:20 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Ami
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:20 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's right, but OTOH, if the
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > That's right, but OTOH, if the user specifies gin_pending_list_limit
> > > as an option during Create Index wit
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > That's right, but OTOH, if the user specifies gin_pending_list_limit
> > as an option during Create Index with a value greater than GUC
> > gin_pending_list_limit, then also we w
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems you want to say about commit id
> > > a1b395b6a26ae80cde17fdfd2def8d351872f399.
> >
> > Yeah thanks.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:36 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > It seems you want to say about commit id
> > a1b395b6a26ae80cde17fdfd2def8d351872f399.
>
> Yeah thanks.
>
> > I wonder why they have not
> > changed it to gin_penidng_list_li
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 6:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:10 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:10 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think the current situation is not go
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the current situation is not good but if we try to cap it to
> > > maintenance_work_mem + gin_*_work_mem the
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:58 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I think the current situation is not good but if we try to cap it to
> > maintenance_work_mem + gin_*_work_mem then also I don't think it will
> > make the situation much better.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:12 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:45 PM Amit Kapila
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:45 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:48 AM Peter G
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:48 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ISTM that the use of maintenance_work_mem wasn
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:22 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:48 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > I would say that sucks, because it makes it harder to
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:45 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:48 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > > I would say that sucks, because it makes it harder to set
> > > maintenance_work_mem correctly. Not sure how hard it would
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:57 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > We wanted to decide how a parallel vacuum should use memory? Can each
> > worker consume maintenance_work_mem to clean up the gin Index or all
> > workers should use no more than mainte
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:48 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > I would say that sucks, because it makes it harder to set
> > maintenance_work_mem correctly. Not sure how hard it would be to fix,
> > though.
>
> ginInsertCleanup() may now be the w
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> I would say that sucks, because it makes it harder to set
> maintenance_work_mem correctly. Not sure how hard it would be to fix,
> though.
ginInsertCleanup() may now be the worst piece of code in the entire
tree, so no surprised that it gets
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> As per docs [1] (see maintenance_work_mem), the maximum amount of memory used
> by the Vacuum command must be no more than maintenance_work_mem. However,
> during the review/discussion of the "parallel vacuum" patch [2], we observed
> that it
As per docs [1] (see maintenance_work_mem), the maximum amount of memory
used by the Vacuum command must be no more than maintenance_work_mem.
However, during the review/discussion of the "parallel vacuum" patch [2],
we observed that it is not true. Basically, if there is a gin index
defined on a
28 matches
Mail list logo
