Le lun. 29 nov. 2021 à 22:27, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> a écrit :
> Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info> writes: > > Le lun. 29 nov. 2021 à 20:39, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> a écrit : > >> [ looks closer ... ] Ah, that patch is a bit buggy: it fails to do the > >> right thing in the cases where the loop does a "continue". The attached > >> revision seems to behave properly. > > > I've tried your patch with my test case. It still uses a lot of memory. > > Actually even more. > > Hmm ... I tried it with your test case, and I see the backend completing > the query without going beyond 190MB used (which is mostly shared memory). > Without the patch it blows past that point very quickly indeed. > > I'm checking it in HEAD though; perhaps there's something else wrong > in the back branches? > > That's also what I was thinking. I was only trying with v14. I just checked with v15devel, and your patch works alright. So there must be something else with back branches. -- Guillaume.
