Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZDfQ==_58+_f_S2VRx1T+5pdrmTJwVLQt=SjQ5Pi5YjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Parallel bitmap heap scan  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Seems bug in postgres_fdw?
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments withpg_receivexlog