On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Gierth
>> <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Right.
>>>
>>> But I don't think just copying the value is sufficient; if a new bit was
>>> set while we were processing the old ones, how would we know which to
>>> clear? We couldn't just clear all the bits afterwards because then we
>>> might lose a request.
>>
>> Agreed. The attached draft patch handles that correctly, I think.
>
> After some testing, here is a better one for review. Changes:
>
> 1. The copy wasn't really needed.
> 2. errno needed to be restored (in case bms_union stomped on it),
> thanks to Andrew for an off-list complaint about that.
> 3. Memory context was wrong.
> 4. bms_first_member() eats its input. Need to use bms_next_member() instead.
>
Won't in the success case, you need to delete each member (by
something like bms_del_member) rather than just using bms_free?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
