Hi,
On 2018-06-06 01:06:39 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 6 June 2018 at 00:57, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I think it's ok to only handle this gracefully if serialization is
> > supported.
> >
> > But I think my proposal to continue use a hashtable for the already
> > known groups, and sorting for additional groups would largely address
> > that largely, right? We couldn't deal with groups becoming too large,
> > but easily with the number of groups becoming too large.
>
> My concern is that only accounting memory for the group and not the
> state is only solving half the problem. It might be fine for
> aggregates that don't stray far from their aggtransspace, but for the
> other ones, we could still see OOM.
> If solving the problem completely is too hard, then a half fix (maybe
> 3/4) is better than nothing, but if we can get a design for a full fix
> before too much work is done, then isn't that better?
I don't think we actually disagree. I was really primarily talking
about the case where we can't really do better because we don't have
serialization support. I mean we could just rescan from scratch, using
a groupagg, but that obviously sucks.
Greetings,
Andres Freund