Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZDfQ==_58+_f_S2VRx1T+5pdrmTJwVLQt=SjQ5Pi5YjA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> 0002 wasn't quite careful enough about the placement of #ifdef >> USE_PREFETCH, but otherwise looks OK. Committed after changing that >> and getting rid of the local variable prefetch_iterator, which seemed >> to be adding rather than removing complexity after this refactoring. > > 0003 is rebased after this commit. You've still got this: + if (DsaPointerIsValid(node->pstate->tbmiterator)) + tbm_free_shared_area(dsa, node->pstate->tbmiterator); + + if (DsaPointerIsValid(node->pstate->prefetch_iterator)) + dsa_free(dsa, node->pstate->prefetch_iterator); I'm trying to get to a point where both calls use tbm_free_shared_area() - i.e. no peeking behind the abstraction layer. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: