On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > 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.
Looks good to me, so committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
