| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PHJ file leak. |
| Date: | 2019-11-12 03:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20191112.121958.521015722194151380.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:45 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
> Although the patch seems unobjectionable as far as it goes, I'd like
> to understand why we didn't see the need for it long since. Is there
> another call to ExecParallelHashCloseBatchAccessors somewhere, and
> if so, is that one wrongly placed?
The previous patch would be wrong. The root cause is a open batch so
the right thing to be done at scan end is
ExecHashTableDeatchBatch. And the real issue here seems to be in
ExecutePlan, not in PHJ.
regards
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-12 03:20:27 | Re: [bug fix] Produce a crash dump before main() on Windows |
| Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2019-11-12 03:19:24 | Re: documentation inconsistent re: alignment |