Re: ddd - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: ddd
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa=pcD7yRCjv7OS=7kb4OyKFRk6aGB1GpNZuoVmC8aqbQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ddd  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: ddd
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I run the regression tests with force_parallel_mode=on prior to the
> parallel hash join patch, they pass.  If I run them now, they fail
> inside the parallel hash join tests here:
>
> create table wide as select generate_series(1, 2) as id, rpad('',
> 320000, 'x') as t;
>
> I'm guessing that test case would have failed before, too, but we
> didn't have it.  I'll analyze this further in a bit.

I think this is just a poorly-written assertion.  currentCommandIdUsed
is only used to skip redundant increments of the command counter, and
CommandCounterIncrement() is categorically denied under parallelism
anyway.  Therefore, it's OK for this to happen in parallel mode; we
just need to be in the leader, not the worker.

Therefore, I proposed the attached patch, which fixes the regression
test crash for me.

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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: force parallel mode vs CTAS
Next
From: ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
Date:
Subject: Re: != should give error?