Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Date: 2017-01-02 02:17:12
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRQMDyZ5t1+q4o+hwe7fAjOffvtyAjx=rWOXemBcw+6Sw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Unfortunately it's been a bit trickier than I anticipated to get the
> interprocess batch file sharing and hash table shrinking working
> correctly and I don't yet have a new patch in good enough shape to
> post in time for the January CF. More soon.

I noticed a bug in your latest revision:

> + /*
> + * In HJ_NEED_NEW_OUTER, we already selected the current inner batch for
> + * reading from. If there is a shared hash table, we may have already
> + * partially loaded the hash table in ExecHashJoinPreloadNextBatch.
> + */
> + Assert(hashtable->batch_reader.batchno = curbatch);
> + Assert(hashtable->batch_reader.inner);

Obviously this isn't supposed to be an assignment.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2017-01-02 03:22:29 Re: rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-01-02 02:06:46 Re: proposal: session server side variables