Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoaob_Strkg4Dcx=VyxnyXtrmkV=ofj=pX7gH9hSre-g0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL  (Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL  (Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
<rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> With 0001 applied on PG-head, I got reference leak warning and later a
> server crash.
> this crash is reproducible with enable_parallel_append=off also.
> below is the test case to reproduce this.

New patches attached, fixing all 3 of the issues you reported:

0001 is a new patch to fix the incorrect parallel safety marks on
upper relations.  I don't know of a visible effect of this patch by
itself, but there might be one.

0002 is the same as the old 0001, but I made a fix in
SS_charge_for_initplans() which fixed your most recent crash report.
Either this or the previous change also fixed the crash you saw when
using tab-completion.  Also, I added some test cases based on your
failing examples.

0003-0005 are the same as the old 0002-0004.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench's expression parsing & negative numbers
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: csv format for psql