| From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Query running for very long time (server hanged) with parallel append |
| Date: | 2018-02-07 02:00:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20180207.110049.256524990.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:50:28 -0500, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmoYqdC+9U8mLYkUgM=CaBt6Pzz4R_YNboqDbW-LvUaHO+g(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I think it looks equally good that way, and like you said, the
> > current code does it that way. So in the attached patch, I have
> > swapped the two conditions.
>
> I prefer to avoid introducing 2 new variables and instead just prevent
> the looping directly in the case where we started with a non-partial
> plan.
>
> See attached. Does this look OK?
Ah, we can bail out when starting from the first partial plan.
It's a bit uneasy that pa_next_plan can be -1 but it looks
perfect to me.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2018-02-07 02:20:08 | Re: Failed to request an autovacuum work-item in silence |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-07 01:56:25 | Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV |