Re: freeing bms explicitly

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <akapila(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: freeing bms explicitly
Date: 2022-03-24 02:13:37
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JoaJxUKQD=1--cHLrhYooLO+nvK-c=+ABmb4kSPu6y3g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:30 AM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:39 AM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Your patch looks good to me. I have found one more similar instance in
>> the same file and changed that as well accordingly. Let me know what
>> you think of the attached?
>>
>
> Hi, Amit:
> The patch looks good to me.
>

Thanks. I'll push this tomorrow unless Tom or someone else wants to
look at it or would like to commit.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andy Fan 2022-03-24 02:21:41 Re: Condition pushdown: why (=) is pushed down into join, but BETWEEN or >= is not?
Previous Message David Rowley 2022-03-24 02:03:38 Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions