Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

exec: fix an error with vectorized testing infrastructure #38629

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 3, 2019

Conversation

yuzefovich
Copy link
Member

Previously, when the output of an operator was compared against
the output of a processor as set comparison (i.e. with any order
of rows), we would accumulate the rows "as is" - without deep copy.
But because the underlying memory is almost certain to be reused,
we need to accumulate the copies of the output rows. Now this is
fixed.

Release note: None

Previously, when the output of an operator was compared against
the output of a processor as set comparison (i.e. with any order
of rows), we would accumulate the rows "as is" - without deep copy.
But because the underlying memory is almost certain to be reused,
we need to accumulate the copies of the output rows. Now this is
fixed.

Release note: None
@yuzefovich yuzefovich requested review from a team July 2, 2019 23:04
@cockroach-teamcity
Copy link
Member

This change is Reviewable

@yuzefovich
Copy link
Member Author

TFTR!

bors r+

craig bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 3, 2019
38629: exec: fix an error with vectorized testing infrastructure r=yuzefovich a=yuzefovich

Previously, when the output of an operator was compared against
the output of a processor as set comparison (i.e. with any order
of rows), we would accumulate the rows "as is" - without deep copy.
But because the underlying memory is almost certain to be reused,
we need to accumulate the copies of the output rows. Now this is
fixed.

Release note: None

Co-authored-by: Yahor Yuzefovich <yahor@cockroachlabs.com>
@craig
Copy link
Contributor

craig bot commented Jul 3, 2019

Build succeeded

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants