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. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
