Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> writes: > @Guillaume: Even if memory use with the patch isn't constant, I imagine it's > enough to have avoided OOM.
I think it's good enough in HEAD. In the back branches, the sinval
queue growth is bad enough that there's still an issue. Still,
this is a useful improvement, so I added some comments and pushed it.
regards, tom lane
