> On 8 Apr 2020, at 02:21, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The attached patch is narrow and solves the problem for HashAgg nicely
> without interfering with anything else, so I plan to commit it soon for
> v13.
If I read this thread correctly, there is nothing outstanding here for 14 from
this patch? I've
On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 11:45 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> AllocSet allocates memory for itself in blocks, which double in size
> up
> to maxBlockSize. So, the current block (the last one malloc'd) may
> represent half of the total memory allocated for the context itself.
Narrower approach that
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 23:39 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > 4. Do you think it would be better to have two separate functions for
> > MemoryContextCount(), a recursive version and a non-recursive
> > version.
>
> I could, but right now the only
On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 16:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I still think we should do something for v13, such as the
> > originally-
> > proposed patch[1]. It's not critical, but it simply reports a
> > better
> > number for memory consumption. Currently, the memory usage appears
> > to
> > jump,
On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 23:39 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> 1. The comment mentions "passthru", but you've removed that
> parameter.
Fixed, thank you.
> 2. I don't think MemoryContextCount is the best name for this
> function. When I saw:
I've gone back and forth on naming a bit. The right name,
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020 at 13:21, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Attached refactoring patch. There's enough in here that warrants
> discussion that I don't think this makes sense for v13 and I'm adding
> it to the July commitfest.
I had a read over this too. I noted down the following during my pass of it.
1.
Hi,
On 2020-03-27 17:21:10 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Attached refactoring patch. There's enough in here that warrants
> discussion that I don't think this makes sense for v13 and I'm adding
> it to the July commitfest.
IDK, adding a commit to v13 that we know we should do architecturally
On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 15:41 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> In an off-list discussion, Andres suggested that MemoryContextStats
> could be refactored to achieve this purpose, perhaps with flags to
> avoid walking through the blocks and freelists when those are not
> needed.
Attached refactoring patch.
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 16:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Other people may have different concerns, but that was the only thing
> that was bothering me.
OK, thank you for raising it.
Perhaps we can re-fix the issue for HashAgg if necessary, or I can
tweak some accounting things within HashAgg
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 15:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:27 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > I think omitting the tail of the current block is an unqualified
> > improvement for the purpose of obeying work_mem, regardless of the
> > OS.
> > The block sizes keep doubling up to
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:44 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 15:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Well, the issue is, if I understand correctly, that this means that
> > MemoryContextStats() might now report a smaller amount of memory than
> > what we actually allocated from the
On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 11:45 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Although that's technically correct, the purpose of
> MemoryContextMemAllocated() is to give a "real" usage number so we
> know
> when we're out of work_mem and need to spill (in particular, the
> disk-
> based HashAgg work, but ideally other
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 15:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, the issue is, if I understand correctly, that this means that
> MemoryContextStats() might now report a smaller amount of memory than
> what we actually allocated from the operating system. That seems like
> it might lead someone trying
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:25:16PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 19:11 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
AFAICS the 2x allocation is the worst case, because it only happens
right after allocating a new block (of twice the size), when the
"utilization" drops from 100% to 50%. But in
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:27 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> I think omitting the tail of the current block is an unqualified
> improvement for the purpose of obeying work_mem, regardless of the OS.
> The block sizes keep doubling up to 8MB, and it doesn't make a lot of
> sense to count that last large
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 11:44 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Procedurally, I think that it is highly inappropriate to submit a
> patch two weeks after the start of the final CommitFest and then
> commit it just over 48 hours later without a single endorsement of
> the
> change from anyone.
Reverted.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 2:11 PM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> My understanding is that this is really just an accounting issue, where
> allocating a block would get us over the limit, which I suppose might be
> an issue with low work_mem values.
Well, the issue is, if I understand correctly, that this
On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 19:11 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> AFAICS the 2x allocation is the worst case, because it only happens
> right after allocating a new block (of twice the size), when the
> "utilization" drops from 100% to 50%. But in practice the utilization
> will be somewhere in between,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:44:05AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
Attached is a patch that makes mem_allocated a method (rather than a
field) of MemoryContext, and allows each memory context type to track
the memory its own way. They all do the same
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jeff Davis wrote:
> Attached is a patch that makes mem_allocated a method (rather than a
> field) of MemoryContext, and allows each memory context type to track
> the memory its own way. They all do the same thing as before
> (increment/decrement a field), but
On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 11:45 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> Attached is a patch that makes mem_allocated a method (rather than a
> field) of MemoryContext, and allows each memory context type to track
> the memory its own way. They all do the same thing as before
> (increment/decrement a field), but
AllocSet allocates memory for itself in blocks, which double in size up
to maxBlockSize. So, the current block (the last one malloc'd) may
represent half of the total memory allocated for the context itself.
The free space at the end of that block hasn't been touched at all, and
doesn't
22 matches
Mail list logo
