| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index bucket split bug |
| Date: | 2026-07-09 10:45:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+pd3T8ULEF6P-9AzpTCdWMG+ciWYopa+9xjj-urEwmRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 2:10 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> Both tests are useful in their own way. The regression test runs
> quickly and so might be worth committing alongside the fix -- but it
> depends on leaving behind an incomplete split. The isolation test
> demonstrates that the bug doesn't hinge upon an incomplete split. The
> incomplete split case is particularly nasty, though, because the
> potential for wrong answers persists until an inserter completes the
> split.
>
I am getting following regression diff even after applying the patch:
-step s1_split: <... completed>
step s2_scan:
SELECT count(*) FROM hash_split_test
WHERE v = (SELECT k FROM hash_split_key);
@@ -68,3 +67,4 @@
11
(1 row)
I will review the code later.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2026-07-09 10:55:50 | RE: Add enable_groupagg GUC parameter to control GroupAggregate usage |
| Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2026-07-09 10:44:19 | Re: Rendezvous variables: safe to pass an access token between two extensions? |