Re: [HACKERS] memory usage of pg_upgrade

2014-02-12 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 09:14:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 07:39:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > In the case of tablespaces, I should have thought you could keep a > > > hash table of the names and just store an entry id in the table > > > structure. But that's

Re: [HACKERS] memory usage of pg_upgrade

2014-02-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 07:39:00PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > In the case of tablespaces, I should have thought you could keep a > > hash table of the names and just store an entry id in the table > > structure. But that's just my speculation without actually looking > > at the code, so don't

Re: [HACKERS] memory usage of pg_upgrade

2013-09-09 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 06:39:39PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 09/09/2013 06:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >pg_upgrade reserves 5 times MAXPGPATH, or 5120 characters, for the > >tablespace name of every object (table, toast table, index) in the > >database being upgraded. This adds up pretty

Re: [HACKERS] memory usage of pg_upgrade

2013-09-09 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 09/09/2013 06:20 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: pg_upgrade reserves 5 times MAXPGPATH, or 5120 characters, for the tablespace name of every object (table, toast table, index) in the database being upgraded. This adds up pretty quickly when there is a very large number of objects. It could be changed

[HACKERS] memory usage of pg_upgrade

2013-09-09 Thread Jeff Janes
pg_upgrade reserves 5 times MAXPGPATH, or 5120 characters, for the tablespace name of every object (table, toast table, index) in the database being upgraded. This adds up pretty quickly when there is a very large number of objects. It could be changed to char* to a separately allocated name that