From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Douglas Doole <dougdoole(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |
Date: | 2017-08-25 21:12:12 |
Message-ID: | 11223.1503695532@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm, I'm not sure why SortInstrumentation belongs naturally to
>> tuplesort.h but putting an array of them there would be a "gross
>> abstraction violation". Perhaps it would help to rename
>> struct SharedSortInfo to SortInstrumentationArray, and change its
>> field names to be less specific to the parallel-worker use case?
> What other use case could there be? I think an array of
> SortInstrumentation objects intended to be stored in DSM is fairly
> clearly a bit of executor-specific machinery and thus properly
> declared along with the node that contains it.
I'm not really convinced, but it's not worth arguing further.
Here's a reviewed version of the second patch. I fixed one bug
(wrong explain group nesting) and made some additional cosmetic
improvements beyond the struct relocation.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
propagate-sort-instrumentation-2.patch | text/x-diff | 22.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-25 21:17:56 | Re: [PATCH] Push limit to sort through a subquery |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-25 20:30:58 | Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion |