Re: Reference to - BUG #18349: ERROR: invalid DSA memory alloc request size 1811939328, CONTEXT: parallel worker
От | Andrei Lepikhov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Reference to - BUG #18349: ERROR: invalid DSA memory alloc request size 1811939328, CONTEXT: parallel worker |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7428912d-1600-4e79-9aed-fee788e20ca0@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Reference to - BUG #18349: ERROR: invalid DSA memory alloc request size 1811939328, CONTEXT: parallel worker (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Reference to - BUG #18349: ERROR: invalid DSA memory alloc request size 1811939328, CONTEXT: parallel worker
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 10/17/24 15:57, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 9:12 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yeah, I misunderstood the meaning of the estimated_size variable. Your >> solution is more universal. Also, I confirm, it passes my synthetic test. >> Also, it raises the immediate question: What if we have too many >> duplicates? Sometimes, in user complaints, I see examples where they, >> analysing the database's logical consistency, pass through millions of >> duplicates to find an unexpected value. Do we need a top memory >> consumption limit here? I recall a thread in the mailing list with a >> general approach to limiting backend memory consumption, but it is >> finished with no result. > > It is a hard problem alright[1]. > >> The patch looks good as well as commentary. > > Thanks, I will go ahead and push this now. > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAAKRu_aLMRHX6_y%3DK5i5wBMTMQvoPMO8DT3eyCziTHjsY11cVA%40mail.gmail.com Thanks for the link. BTW, why not to use current case and fix the problem with the 'invalid DSA memory alloc request size 1811939328' itself ? -- regards, Andrei Lepikhov
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: