[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Oleg Golovanov
Тема [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Дата
Msg-id 1493226828.775408654@f385.i.mail.ru
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
Hi.

Thanks for rebased patch set v12. Currently I try to use this patch on my new test site and get following:

Hmm...  The next patch looks like a unified diff to me...
The text leading up to this was:
--------------------------
|diff --git a/src/include/access/parallel.h b/src/include/access/parallel.h
|index bdf15621c83..e9db8880161 100644
|--- a/src/include/access/parallel.h
|+++ b/src/include/access/parallel.h
--------------------------
patching file src/include/access/parallel.h
Using Plan A...
Hunk #1 FAILED at 58.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/access/parallel.h.rej

Can you actualize your patch set? The error got from 0010-hj-parallel-v12.patch.

Best Regards,

Oleg Golovanov
Moscow, Russia

Четверг, 13 апреля 2017, 13:49 +03:00 от Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>:

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Oleg Golovanov <rentech@mail.ru> wrote:
> bash-4.2$ grep Hunk *.log | grep FAILED
> 0005-hj-leader-gate-v11.patch.log:Hunk #1 FAILED at 14.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #2 FAILED at 2850.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #1 FAILED at 21.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #3 FAILED at 622.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #6 FAILED at 687.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #1 FAILED at 21.
> 0010-hj-parallel-v11.patch.log:Hunk #3 FAILED at 153.

Hi Oleg

Thanks for looking at this. It conflicted with commit 9c7f5229. Here
is a rebased patch set.

This version also removes some code for dealing with transient record
types which didn't work out. I'm trying to deal with that problem
separately[1] and in a general way so that the parallel hash join
patch doesn't have to deal with it at all.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm=0ZtQ-SpsgCyzzYpsXS6e=kZWqk3g5Ygn3MDV7A8dabUA@mail.gmail.com

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: