Bruno Wolff III <br...@wolff.to> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, in my hands this produces the same size leak (~28GB) in either v10
>> or v11. In HEAD, somebody's made it even worse (~43GB). So this is
>> certainly pretty broken, but I'm not sure why it seems worse to you in
>> v11 than before.
> As a short term work around, could I create the index first and use
> insert statements, each in their own transaction, to get the table loaded
> with the index?
Yes; it might also be that you don't even need to break it up into
separate statements.
> Is the issue on Fedora taking very long to build a normal spgist index for
> network addresses worth pursuing separately, or is it likely to be the same
> underlying cause?
This issue only applies if it was an exclusion constraint. If you saw
slowness or bloat with a plain index, that would be worth investigating
separately.
regards, tom lane
