Re: PHJ file leak.

At Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:48:19 +1300, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:03 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > The previous patch would be wrong. The root cause is a open batch so
> > > > the right thing to be done at scan end is
> > > > ExecHashTableDeatchBatch. And the real issue here seems to be in
> > > > ExecutePlan, not in PHJ.
> > >
> > > You are right. Here is the email I just wrote that says the same
> > > thing, but with less efficiency:
> >
> > And yeah, your Make_parallel_shutdown_on_broken_channel.patch seems
> > like the real fix here. It's not optional to run that at
> > end-of-query, though you might get that impression from various
> > comments, and it's also not OK to call it before the end of the query,
> > though you might get that impression from what the code actually does.
>
> Here's the version I'd like to commit in a day or two, once the dust
> has settled on the minor release. Instead of adding yet another copy
> of that code, I just moved it out of the loop; this way there is no
> way to miss it. I think the comment could also be better, but I'll
> wait for the concurrent discussions about the meaning of
> ExecShutdownNode() to fix that in master.

The phatch's shape looks better. Thanks.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center