Skip to content

Conversation

@Standing-Man
Copy link
Contributor

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Are there any user-facing changes?

Signed-off-by: StandingMan <jmtangcs@gmail.com>
@Standing-Man
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xudong963 and @2010YOUY01, PTAL

@github-actions github-actions bot added the physical-plan Changes to the physical-plan crate label Jan 19, 2026
@kumarUjjawal
Copy link
Contributor

I believe the discussion in the original issue mentioned two options and there was a general consensus that both should be implemented.

@Standing-Man
Copy link
Contributor Author

I believe the discussion in the original issue mentioned two options and there was a general consensus that both should be implemented.

Thank you for the reminder, but I’m unclear on how to properly investigate and adjust the SPILL_BATCH_MEMORY_MARGIN variable.

@2010YOUY01
Copy link
Contributor

I believe the discussion in the original issue mentioned two options and there was a general consensus that both should be implemented.

Thank you for the reminder, but I’m unclear on how to properly investigate and adjust the SPILL_BATCH_MEMORY_MARGIN variable.

I still don't think we should downgrade it to debug level, see #19846 (comment)

Perhaps @xudong963 can share some reproducer that triggers this warning, and we can figure out next how to suppress that specific case (maybe adjusting SPILL_BATCH_MEMORY_MARGIN would work)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

physical-plan Changes to the physical-plan crate

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Log pollution from Record batch memory usage exceeds the expected limit

3 participants