On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Andrew Gierth >> <and...@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
