Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date
Msg-id 20200407025305.hss7dd2qgd7s54on@development
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 10:19:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes:
>> Fair enough. Unsure if Tomas is still online to comment and/or push,
>> but reverting SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS back to 0 works for me as an
>> initial fix.
>
>I'm guessing he went to bed, so I'll push a fix in a moment.
>The patch has survived enough test cycles here now to make me
>moderately confident that it fixes the issue.
>

Nope, how I could I sleep with half of the buildfarm still red?

I came to the same conclusion (that the change in TuplesortMethod
definiton is the culprit) a while ago and was about to push a fix that
initialized it correctly in ExecSortInitializeDSM. But I agree reverting
it back to the old definition is probably better.

Thanks!

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Zhang, Jie"
Date:
Subject: [patch] some PQExpBuffer are not destroyed in pg_dump
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)