| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BRIN INDEX value |
| Date: | 2015-09-04 01:20:39 |
| Message-ID: | 55E8F1E7.7000900@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/4/2015 8:28 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>
>> Attached hack fixes the symptom but perhaps not the correct fix for this.
>
> Why can't we fix summarize_range() in brin.c:
>
> IndexBuildHeapRangeScan(heapRel, state->bs_irel, indexInfo, false, true,
> heapBlk, state->bs_pagesPerRange,
> brinbuildCallback, (void *) state);
>
> This currently thoughtlessly passes scannumblocks as
> state->bs_pagesPerRange. Shouldn't we change this so that
> (scanStartBlock + scanNumBlocks) does not exceed scan->rs_nblocks?
>
Ah, it did cross my mind to the fix it in brin.c but was not sure. I did
it that way in the attached patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| brin-heap-rangescan-fix.patch | text/x-diff | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2015-09-04 01:35:55 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-09-04 01:15:07 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |