Hi,
On 2018-12-16 17:30:30 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Dec-16, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > > I think there's a one-line fix, attached: just add the number of changes
> > > in a subxact to nentries_mem when the transaction is assigned to the
> > > parent.
> >
> > Isn't this going to cau
On 2018-Dec-16, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I think there's a one-line fix, attached: just add the number of changes
> > in a subxact to nentries_mem when the transaction is assigned to the
> > parent.
>
> Isn't this going to cause significant breakage, because we rely on
> nentries_mem to be accura
Hi,
On 2018-12-16 12:06:16 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Found this on Postgres 9.6, but I think it affects back to 9.4.
>
> I've seen a case where reorderbuffer keeps very large amounts of memory
> in use, without spilling to disk, if the main transaction does little or
> no changes and many su
On 12/16/18 4:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hello
>
> Found this on Postgres 9.6, but I think it affects back to 9.4.
>
> I've seen a case where reorderbuffer keeps very large amounts of memory
> in use, without spilling to disk, if the main transaction does little or
> no changes and many subtr
