On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Hmm, fair point. But I'm still not convinced that we really need to
>> > add extra accounting for this. What's wrong with just reporting the
>> > number of exact and lossy pages?
>
>> No. I intended to show the desired memory space for a TIDBitmap rather
>> than the peak memory usage for that TIDBitmap. And I thought it'd be
> better
>> for the latter to be displayed as additional information. However, I've
>> removed the functionality for showing the desired memory space due to
>> technical problems. Now I should probably remove the functionality for
>> showing the peak memory usage too.
>
>> Yes, as Andres mentioned, showing the peak memory usage is not a bad idea,
>> I think. But I start to think it's not necessarily worth complicating the
>> code ...
>
>> If there are no objections of others, I'll remove extra accounting for
>> showing the peak memory usage.
>
> Done. Please find attached a patch.
Looks good to me, so committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company