|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)pm(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> For what it's worth, this version makes sense to me.
Thanks for looking. Here's a version that deals with the JIT
instrumentation. As Andres noted far upthread, that was also
really bogusly done before. Not only could you get multiple "JIT"
subnodes on a Gather node, but we failed to print the info at all
if the parallelism was expressed as Gather Merge rather than
A side effect of this change is that per-worker JIT info is now
printed one plan level further down: before it was printed on
the Gather node, but now it's attached to the Gather's child,
because that's where we print other per-worker data. I don't
see anything particularly wrong with that, but it's another
change from the behavior today.
It's still really unclear to me how we could exercise any of
this behavior meaningfully in a regression test. I thought
for a little bit about using the TAP infrastructure instead
of a traditional-style test, but it seems like that doesn't
buy anything except for a bias towards ignoring details instead
of overspecifying them. Which is not much of an improvement.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2020-01-25 23:20:16||Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans|
|Previous Message||Noah Misch||2020-01-25 19:23:07||Re: Strange coding in _mdfd_openseg()|