On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:35 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> 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 empty leaf pages and internal pages. I > > am not sure if we can do anything for such cases. The case for Gin > > index seems to be clear and it seems to be having the risk of using > > much more memory, so why not try to do something for it? > > Yeah gin indexes is clear now and I agree that we need to do something > for it. But I'm also concerned third party index AMs. Similar to the > problem related to IndexBulkDeleteResult structure that we're > discussing on another thread I thought that we have the same problem > on this. >
I understand your concern, but I am not sure what is a good way to deal with it. I think we can do something generic like divide the maintainence_work_mem equally among workers, but then the indexes that use maintainence_work_mem will suffer if the number of such indexes is much less than the indexes that don't use maintainence_work_mem. 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). Do you have any other ideas for this? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com