On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Finzel writes:
> > We are hitting this leak in production on an 11.6 system for a query that
> > is using a parallel hash join. Was this fix pushed in 11.7? I can't tell
> > clearly from the release notes for 11.7 or this thread.
>
> It lo
Jeremy Finzel writes:
> We are hitting this leak in production on an 11.6 system for a query that
> is using a parallel hash join. Was this fix pushed in 11.7? I can't tell
> clearly from the release notes for 11.7 or this thread.
It looks like you're asking about this commit:
Author: Thomas Mu
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:52 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <
> horikyota@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The phatch's shape looks better. Thanks.
> >
> > +1. LGTM as well.
>
> Thanks. Pushed.
>
>
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > The phatch's shape looks better. Thanks.
>
> +1. LGTM as well.
Thanks. Pushed.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:48:19 +1300, Thomas Munro
> wrote in
> >
> > Here's the version I'd like to commit in a day or two, once the dust
> > has settled on the minor release. Instead of adding yet another copy
> > of that code, I just
At Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:48:19 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote
in
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:03 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > > wrote:
> > > > The previous patch would be wrong. The root caus
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:03 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> > > The previous patch would be wrong. The root cause is a open batch so
> > > the right thing to be done at scan end is
>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
> > At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> > > Although the patch seems unobjectionable as far as it goes, I'd like
> > > to understand why we didn't see the need for
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> > Although the patch seems unobjectionable as far as it goes, I'd like
> > to understand why we didn't see the need for it long since. Is there
> > another call to ExecParallelHashC
At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> Although the patch seems unobjectionable as far as it goes, I'd like
> to understand why we didn't see the need for it long since. Is there
> another call to ExecParallelHashCloseBatchAccessors somewhere, and
> if so, is that one wrongly pl
At Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:24:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > wrote:
> >> Hello. While looking a patch, I found that PHJ sometimes complains for
> >> file leaks if accompanied by LIMIT.
>
> > Thanks for the patch! Yeah,
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> Hello. While looking a patch, I found that PHJ sometimes complains for
>> file leaks if accompanied by LIMIT.
> Thanks for the patch! Yeah, this seems correct, but I'd like to think
> about it some more before
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:24 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> Hello. While looking a patch, I found that PHJ sometimes complains for
> file leaks if accompanied by LIMIT.
Oops.
> Repro is very simple:
>
> create table t as (select a, a as b from generate_series(0, 99) a);
> analyze t;
> select
Hello. While looking a patch, I found that PHJ sometimes complains for
file leaks if accompanied by LIMIT.
Repro is very simple:
create table t as (select a, a as b from generate_series(0, 99) a);
analyze t;
select t.a from t join t t2 on (t.a = t2.a) limit 1;
Once in several (or dozen of) t
14 matches
Mail list logo
