From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problem in Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan? |
Date: | 2017-03-27 03:51:04 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uaFnn1Kh8yRko6YiTT-XY02s-jebETgo3vg7nEOsbF5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think in this area we need more testing, reason these are not tested
>>> properly because these are not the natural case for parallel bitmap.
>>> I think in next few days I will test more such cases by forcing the
>>> parallel bitmap.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, is your testing complete?
Yes, I have done more testing around this area with more cases, like
one page with BitmapOr etc.
Now it looks fine to me.
>>
>>> Here is the patch to fix the issue in hand. I have also run the
>>> regress suit with force_parallel_mode=regress and all the test are
>>> passing.
>>>
>>
>> Thomas, did you get chance to verify Dilip's latest patch?
>>
>> I have added this issue in PostgreSQL 10 Open Items list so that we
>> don't loose track of this issue.
>
> The result is correct with this patch. I ran make installcheck then
> the same steps as above and the query result was correct after
> creating the index.
Thanks for confirming.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-03-27 04:06:13 | Re: pg_get_statisticsextdef() is not quite the full shilling |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-03-27 03:06:39 | Re: Time to drop old-style (V0) functions? |