Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1419326161.24895.13.camel@jeff-desktop обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded
HashAgg
Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
It seems that these two patches are being reviewed together. Should I just combine them into one? My understanding was that some wanted to review the memory accounting patch separately. On Sun, 2014-12-21 at 20:19 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > That's the only conflict, and after fixing it it compiles OK. However, I > got a segfault on the very first query I tried :-( If lookup_hash_entry doesn't find the group, and there's not enough memory to create it, then it returns NULL; but the caller wasn't checking for NULL. My apologies for such a trivial mistake, I was doing most of my testing using DISTINCT. My fix here was done quickly, so I'll take a closer look later to make sure I didn't miss something else. New patch attached (rebased, as well). I also see your other message about adding regression testing. I'm hesitant to slow down the tests for everyone to run through this code path though. Should I add regression tests, and then remove them later after we're more comfortable that it works? Regards Jeff Davis
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: