| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no workers. |
| Date: | 2017-04-01 14:28:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob1k_QKQfExKX1gxLr3vUg6mmzQpvcwLm=BJxYP7aabFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-04-01 01:22:14 +0000, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Avoid GatherMerge crash when there are no workers.
>
> I think the gather merge code needs a bit more test coverage (sorry to
> make this a larger theme today). As shown by
> https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/executor/nodeGatherMerge.c.gcov.html
> we don't actually merge anything (heap_compare_slots is not exercised).
Sounds reasonable.
> I btw also wonder if it's good that we have a nearly identical copy of
> heap_compare_slots and a bunch of the calling code in both
> nodeMergeAppend.c and nodeGatherMerge.c. On the other hand, it's not
> heavily envolving code.
Yeah, I don't know. We could alternatively try to move that to some
common location and merge the two implementations. I'm not sure
exactly where, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-04-01 14:58:38 | Re: Add optional JIT support for expression evaluation. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-04-01 14:21:27 | Re: Vendor LLVM 4.0. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-04-01 15:12:11 | Re: gitlab post-mortem: pg_basebackup waiting for checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-04-01 14:19:05 | Re: Multiple false-positive warnings from Valgrind |