| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Registering LWTRANCHE_PARALLEL_HASH_JOIN |
| Date: | 2018-02-27 19:39:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa_VUd3yWfHt7e-Kqpp4DCNhSgURcwtrU4L60_ns=+2fA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I forgot to register a display name for LWTRANCHE_PARALLEL_HASH_JOIN,
> the tranche ID used by the LWLock that Parallel Hash uses when handing
> out chunks of memory. Please see attached.
I think that you need to insert some weasel words into the
documentation for this, because I don't think it's really accurate to
say that it's only used when trying to acquire a new chunk of memory.
Or maybe I'm wrong and it's altogether accurate ... but
ExecParallelHashMergeCounters doesn't look like an allocation to me,
and ExecParallelHashTuplePrealloc doesn't really look like an
allocation either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-27 19:41:47 | Re: Let's remove DSM_INPL_NONE. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-27 19:38:52 | Re: Sigh, I broke crake again |