On 4/5/26 20:27, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on adding information about prefetching for scans [1], which
>> includes BitmapHeapScan. I realized the instrumentation added by this
>> thread may not be quite right, resulting in missing instrumentation for
>> non-parallel-aware scans in a parallel query.
>>
>> A better description / explanation of the issue is posted here [2]. I've
>> posted a proposed fix in the following message [3], in a patch:
>>
>> v8-0002-Show-Bitmap-Heap-Scan-stats-for-non-parallel-awar.patch
>>
>> I wonder if someone from this thread could review my analysis, and
>> confirm this is not intentional. I don't see it discussed in the thread,
>> so I assume no one noticed this behavior. I'd also appreciate a review
>> of the proposed fix, or suggestions for alternative fixes.
>
> I can't imagine this was intentional.
>
Indeed.
> I reviewed your approach and suggest we aim for even lower impact by
> always allocating the ParallelBitmapHeapState. That means the DSM
> layout won't differ such that pcxt->toc has to point to the
> instrumentation in the parallel-oblivious case and the pstate in the
> parallel-aware case. Attached is a patch that does this.
>
I like this approach - it's much simpler / less invasive. It did not
occur to me to use the parallel_aware in BitmapTableScanSetup.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
