On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That's right, but OTOH, if the user specifies gin_pending_list_limit > > as an option during Create Index with a value greater than GUC > > gin_pending_list_limit, then also we will face the same problem. It > > seems to me that we haven't thought enough on memory usage during Gin > > pending list cleanup and I don't want to independently make a decision > > to change it. So unless the original author/committer or some other > > people who have worked in this area share their opinion, we can leave > > it as it is and make a parallel vacuum patch adapt to it. > > Yeah I totally agreed. > > Apart from the GIN problem can we discuss whether need to change the > current memory usage policy of parallel utility command described in > the doc? We cannot control the memory usage in index AM after all but > we need to generically consider how much memory is used during > parallel vacuum. >
Do you mean to say change the docs for a parallel vacuum patch in this regard? If so, I think we might want to do something for maintenance_work_mem for parallel vacuum as described in one of the emails above [1] and then change the docs accordingly. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JhpNsTiHj%2BJOy3N8uCGyTBMH8xDhUEtBw8ZeCAPRGp6Q%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
