From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key |
Date: | 2018-01-24 21:57:57 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=3u_A5xR1hLe9GJV-9c+dSvmu5vDC6VMHYRj42c3pS=zA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom, do you want to double-check that this fixes it for you?
>>
>> I can confirm that a valgrind run succeeded for me with the patch
>> in place.
>
> Committed. Sorry for the delay.
FYI I'm planning to look into adding a valgrind check to the
commitfest CI thing I run so we can catch these earlier without
committer involvement. It's super slow because of all those pesky
regression tests so I'll probably need to improve the scheduling logic
a bit to make it useful first (prioritising new patches or something,
since otherwise it'll take up to multiple days to get around to
valgrind-testing any given patch...).
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-24 22:06:30 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |
Previous Message | Luke Cowell | 2018-01-24 21:56:57 | Re: Possible performance regression with pg_dump of a large number of relations |