From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time |
Date: | 2018-04-08 02:49:39 |
Message-ID: | 20180408024939.wyyc4zynvwe4rrwl@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Support partition pruning at execution time
>
> Buildfarm member lapwing doesn't like this. I can reproduce the
> failures here by setting force_parallel_mode = regress. Kind
> of looks like instrumentation counts aren't getting propagated
> from workers back to the leader?
This theory seems correct; the counters are getting incremented, yet
explain later prints them as zero. What is the code that is supposed to
propagate the instrumentation counts?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-08 02:56:21 | Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-08 01:33:01 | pgsql: Remove overzeleous assertions in pg_atomic_flag code. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-04-08 02:56:21 | Re: pgsql: Support partition pruning at execution time |
Previous Message | Christophe Pettus | 2018-04-08 02:37:47 | Re: PostgreSQL's handling of fsync() errors is unsafe and risks data loss at least on XFS |