Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm, in my hands this produces the same size leak (~28GB) in either v10 >> or v11. In HEAD, somebody's made it even worse (~43GB). So this is >> certainly pretty broken, but I'm not sure why it seems worse to you in >> v11 than before. > As a short term work around, could I create the index first and use > insert statements, each in their own transaction, to get the table loaded > with the index? Yes; it might also be that you don't even need to break it up into separate statements. > Is the issue on Fedora taking very long to build a normal spgist index for > network addresses worth pursuing separately, or is it likely to be the same > underlying cause? This issue only applies if it was an exclusion constraint. If you saw slowness or bloat with a plain index, that would be worth investigating separately. regards, tom lane
