On 2017-03-07 13:06:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >>> On 2017-02-24 18:04:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >>>> Concretely, something like the attached. This passes regression tests > >>>> but I've not pushed on it any harder than that. > > > I think we should go forward with something like this patch in all > > branches, and only use Tomas' patch in master, because they're > > considerably larger. > > While I'm willing to back-patch the proposed patch to some extent, > I'm a bit hesitant to shove it into all branches, because I don't > think that usage patterns that create a problem occurred till recently. > You won't get a whole lot of standalone-block allocations unless you > have code that allocates many chunks bigger than 8K without applying a > double-the-request-each-time type of strategy. And even then, it doesn't > hurt unless you try to resize those chunks, or delete them in a non-LIFO > order. > > The hashjoin issue is certainly new, and the reorderbuffer issue can't > go back further than 9.4. So my inclination is to patch back to 9.4 > and call it good.
That works for me. If we find further cases later, we can easily enough backpatch it then. Regards, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers