From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: identifying the backend that owns a temporary schema |
Date: | 2022-09-28 22:56:20 |
Message-ID: | 4157446.1664405780@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I used it in v4 of the patch.
I reviewed this and made some changes, some cosmetic some less so.
Notably, I was bemused that of the four calls of
pgstat_fetch_stat_local_beentry, three tested for a NULL result even
though they cannot get one, while the fourth (pg_stat_get_backend_idset)
*is* at hazard of a NULL result but lacked a check. I changed
pg_stat_get_backend_idset so that it too cannot get a NULL, and deleted
the dead code from the other callers.
A point that still bothers me a bit about pg_stat_get_backend_idset is
that it could miss or duplicate some backend IDs if the user calls
pg_stat_clear_snapshot() partway through the SRF's run, and we reload
a different set of backend entries than we had before. I added a comment
about that, with an argument why it's not worth working harder, but
is the argument convincing? If not, what should we do?
Also, I realized that the functions we're changing here are mostly
not exercised in the current regression tests :-(. So I added a
small test case.
I think this is probably committable if you agree with my changes.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0001-use-real-backend-id.patch | text/x-diff | 13.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-28 22:58:17 | Re: A potential memory leak on Merge Join when Sort node is not below Materialize node |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-09-28 22:53:02 | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |