From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash |
Date: | 2019-12-21 07:43:05 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLFdtOtrB-Nx0Rhqw8tLR-DiTqPv+cRqVMTRc35a48-QA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 6:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I ran the 150MB 4096 batch "sevenb" self-join with the "rotate" patch,
> > and it worked as expected. I'm now planning to commit that version,
> > unless there are objections or someone wants to argue for a different
> > way to spell rotate() etc.
>
> FWIW, I do want to argue for a different way to spell that. It seems
> like a mighty generic function name --- in particular, there's no
> hint of the word width we're rotating in. Maybe "rotate32" would be
> good enough, though I'm tempted to propose "pg_rotate32" or "rotate_bit32"
> or some other variation on that.
Yeah, I suppose it would be nice to get something reusable out of this
rather than a local definition only. The other important
characteristic is the direction of rotation, so here's a version that
defines pg_rotate_right32() in pg_bitutils.h. In back-branches
without that header we could define it locally.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Rotate-instead-of-shifting-hash-join-batch-number-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-12-21 11:40:03 | Re: Indexing on JSONB field not working |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-12-21 05:10:31 | Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash |