| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jakub Glapa <jakub(dot)glapa(at)gmail(dot)com>, Forums postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments |
| Date: | 2017-11-28 13:43:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYWDCbVDy7KYCUuXOWLjC2FqPmrcEZP3dn+K4AsL4DkHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think BitmapHeapScan check whether dsa is valid or not if DSA is not
> valid then it should assume it's non-parallel plan.
>
> Attached patch should fix the issue.
So, create the pstate and then pretend we didn't? Why not just avoid
creating it in the first place, like this?
I haven't checked whether this fixes the bug, but if it does, we can
avoid introducing an extra branch in BitmapHeapNext.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| no-pstate.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henrik Uggla | 2017-11-28 14:09:09 | Refreshing materialized views |
| Previous Message | Swapnil Vaze | 2017-11-28 13:25:20 | vacuumdb fails with error pg_statistic_relid_att_inh_index constraint violation after upgrade to 9.6 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2017-11-28 14:39:16 | Re: new function for tsquery creartion |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2017-11-28 13:31:32 | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |