subject:"\[HACKERS\] Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins"

Re: [HACKERS] Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins

2017-02-15 Thread Tom Lane

Thomas Munro writes: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Adding a C.F.I. inside this loop is the most straightforward fix, but >> I am leaning towards adding one in ExecHashJoinGetSavedTuple instead, > Would it also make sense

Re: [HACKERS] Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins

2017-02-14 Thread Thomas Munro

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Adding a C.F.I. inside this loop is the most straightforward fix, but > I am leaning towards adding one in ExecHashJoinGetSavedTuple instead, > because that would also ensure that all successful paths through >

[HACKERS] Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins

2017-02-14 Thread Tom Lane

I ran into a case where a hash join took a really long time to respond to a cancel request --- long enough that I gave up and kill -9'd it, because its memory usage was also growing to the point where the kernel would likely soon choose to do that for me. The culprit seems to be that there's no