From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg |
Date: | 2014-12-23 09:16:01 |
Message-ID: | 1419326161.24895.13.camel@jeff-desktop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It seems that these two patches are being reviewed together. Should I
just combine them into one? My understanding was that some wanted to
review the memory accounting patch separately.
On Sun, 2014-12-21 at 20:19 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> That's the only conflict, and after fixing it it compiles OK. However, I
> got a segfault on the very first query I tried :-(
If lookup_hash_entry doesn't find the group, and there's not enough
memory to create it, then it returns NULL; but the caller wasn't
checking for NULL. My apologies for such a trivial mistake, I was doing
most of my testing using DISTINCT. My fix here was done quickly, so I'll
take a closer look later to make sure I didn't miss something else.
New patch attached (rebased, as well).
I also see your other message about adding regression testing. I'm
hesitant to slow down the tests for everyone to run through this code
path though. Should I add regression tests, and then remove them later
after we're more comfortable that it works?
Regards
Jeff Davis
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
hashagg-disk-20141222.patch | text/x-patch | 45.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ravi Kiran | 2014-12-23 09:36:34 | mysql with postgres |
Previous Message | Oskari Saarenmaa | 2014-12-23 08:54:39 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |