Re: Memory leak from ExecutorState context?

Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>

From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-03-17T08:18:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi there,

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 19:51:14 +0100
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> wrote:

> > So I guess the best thing would be to go through these threads, see what
> > the status is, restart the discussion and propose what to do. If you do
> > that, I'm happy to rebase the patches, and maybe see if I could improve
> > them in some way.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I was hoping we'd solve this by the BNL, but if we didn't get that in 4
> > years, maybe we shouldn't stall and get at least an imperfect stop-gap
> > solution ...  
> 
> Indeed. So, to sum-up:
> 
> * Patch 1 could be rebased/applied/backpatched

Would it help if I rebase Patch 1 ("move BufFile stuff into separate context")?

> * Patch 2 is worth considering to backpatch

Same question.

> * Patch 3 seemed withdrawn in favor of BNLJ
> * Patch 4 is waiting for some more review and has some TODO
> * discussion 5 worth few minutes to discuss before jumping on previous topics

These other patches needs more discussions and hacking. They have a low
priority compare to other discussions and running commitfest. However, how can
avoid losing them in limbo again?

Regards,



Commits

  1. Describe hash join implementation