Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqFPyrsDq00KicVEmHyiExBmXCkXeUVqn3RgYaLy5HTYrQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Alvaro,
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 23:48 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2020-Dec-07, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:05 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also, the comment that was in RI_ConstraintInfo now appears in
> > > RI_ConstraintParam, and the new struct (RI_ConstraintInfo) is now
> > > undocumented. What is the relationship between those two structs? I
> > > see that they have pointers to each other, but I think the relationship
> > > should be documented more clearly.
> >
> > I'm not sure the footprint of this patch worth doing but here is a bit
> > more polished version.
>
> I noticed that the foreign_key test fails and it may have to do with
> the fact that a partition's param info remains attached to the
> parent's RI_ConstraintInfo even after it's detached from the parent
> table using DETACH PARTITION.
I think this bit about splitting the struct is a distraction. Let's get
a patch that solves the bug first, and then we can discuss what further
refinements we want to do. I think we should get your patch in
CA+HiwqEOrfN9b=f3sDmySPGc4gO-L_VMFHXLLxVmmdP34e64+w@mail.gmail.com
committed (which I have not read yet.) Do you agree with this plan?
Yeah, I agree.
- Amit
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: