From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |
Date: | 2017-01-04 07:02:09 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uxwdBOxmykAMbwTOrxQaHrYRKP80=1xf98VBPOKzwyHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Other the another option is, that we can always make caller to provide
> an allocator. But this way every new user for simple hash need to take
> care of having allocator.
>
> What is your opinion?
Attached is the new version of the patch which implements it the way I
described.
>
>
>>This also needs docs, including a warning that just
>> using an allocator in shared memory does *NOT* allow the hash table to be
>> used in shared memory in the general case.
>
> Make sense.
Added the Warning.
I have also fixed some bug in parallel bitmap heap scan
(path.parallel_workers was not initialised before calling
cost_bitmap_heap_scan in some cases, so it was taking the
uninitialized value). Patch attached.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
hash-support-alloc-free-v6.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.0 KB |
parallel-bitmap-heap-scan-v6.patch | application/octet-stream | 58.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-04 07:02:11 | Re: Commit fest 2017-01 will begin soon! |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-04 06:46:54 | Re: Potential data loss of 2PC files |