From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: es_query_dsa is broken |
Date: | 2017-12-06 09:16:16 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+LO+Sts5VUS0D2Qy6eA6+D7Ywu2EA_pWMTPaPB2GaDsA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> + EState *estate = gatherstate->ps.state;
>> +
>> + /* Install our DSA area while executing the plan. */
>> + estate->es_query_dsa = gatherstate->pei->area;
>> outerTupleSlot = ExecProcNode(outerPlan);
>> + estate->es_query_dsa = NULL;
>>
>> Won't the above coding pattern create a problem, if ExecProcNode
>> throws an error and outer block catches it and continues execution
>> (consider the case of execution inside PL blocks)?
>
> I don't see what the problem is. The query that got aborted by the
> error wouldn't be sharing an EState with one that didn't.
>
That's right. Ignore my comment, I got confused. Other than that, I
don't see any problem with the code as such apart from that it looks
slightly hacky. I think Thomas or someone needs to develop a patch on
the lines you have mentioned or what Thomas was trying to describe in
his email and see how it comes out.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-06 09:37:17 | fixed tuple descs (was JIT compiling expressions/deform) |
Previous Message | amul sul | 2017-12-06 09:01:24 | Re: pgsql: Support Parallel Append plan nodes. |