Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 to put one in the loop in > ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches (or perhaps > ExecHashJoinSaveTuple for symmetry with the above)? Otherwise you > might have to wait for a few hundred MB of tuples to be written out > which could be slow if IO is somehow overloaded. Mmm, good point. I think in that case the C.F.I. had better be in the loop in ExecHashIncreaseNumBatches, because if you were unlucky the loop might not take the ExecHashJoinSaveTuple path for a long time. Looking around at other callers of ExecHashJoinSaveTuple, the only one that seems to be in need of a C.F.I. is the loop in ExecHashRemoveNextSkewBucket, and there again there's a code path whereby the loop doesn't call ExecHashJoinSaveTuple. Will CFI-ify all three places. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers