I wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > Hmm, fair point. But I'm still not convinced that we really need to > > add extra accounting for this. What's wrong with just reporting the > > number of exact and lossy pages?
> No. I intended to show the desired memory space for a TIDBitmap rather > than the peak memory usage for that TIDBitmap. And I thought it'd be better > for the latter to be displayed as additional information. However, I've > removed the functionality for showing the desired memory space due to > technical problems. Now I should probably remove the functionality for > showing the peak memory usage too. > Yes, as Andres mentioned, showing the peak memory usage is not a bad idea, > I think. But I start to think it's not necessarily worth complicating the > code ... > If there are no objections of others, I'll remove extra accounting for > showing the peak memory usage. Done. Please find attached a patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
explain-bitmapscan-20140110.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
