| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bert <biertie(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-11-20 18:04:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaHfsjqaYNp4pjqF=1ffiHeC-XMvE8S3kJFwopo_2O_ig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Isn't it better to destroy the memory for readers array as that gets
> allocated
> even if there are no workers available for execution?
>
> Attached patch fixes the issue by just destroying readers array.
Well, then you're making ExecGatherShutdownWorkers() not a no-op any
more. I'll go commit a combination of your two patches.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2015-11-20 20:16:55 | Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-11-20 17:29:54 | Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review |