Re: Hash Indexes
От | Jesper Pedersen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hash Indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5f59920b-d516-5aec-a887-97810b5cf7de@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hash Indexes (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hash Indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/05/2016 07:36 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I did some basic testing of same. In that I found one issue with cursor. >> > > Thanks for the testing. The reason for failure was that the patch > didn't take into account the fact that for scrolling cursors, scan can > reacquire the lock and pin on bucket buffer multiple times. I have > fixed it such that we release the pin on bucket buffers after we scan > the last overflow page in bucket. Attached patch fixes the issue for > me, let me know if you still see the issue. > Needs a rebase. hashinsert.c + * reuse the space. There is no such apparent benefit from finsihing the -> finishing hashpage.c + * retrun the buffer, else return InvalidBuffer. -> return + if (blkno == P_NEW) + elog(ERROR, "hash AM does not use P_NEW"); Left over ? + * for unlocking it. -> for unlocking them. hashsearch.c + * bucket, but not pin, then acuire the lock on new bucket and again -> acquire hashutil.c + * half. It is mainly required to finsh the incomplete splits where we are -> finish Ran some tests on a CHAR() based column which showed good results. Will have to compare with a run with the WAL patch applied. make check-world passes. Best regards, Jesper
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: