Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN

From: Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN
Date: 2019-11-07 10:37:12
Message-ID: CA+FpmFdQHb5ma27r4PL9tOXpwHEo4+3CXZMDJgffwRTdTh_xyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 00:30, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I guess I thought of that as a debugging feature and took it out
> > because it was too verbose, but maybe it just needs to be controlled
> > by the VERBOSE switch. Do you think we should put that back?
>
> By which I mean: would you like to send a patch? :-)
>
> Here is a new version of the "Leader:" patch, because cfbot told me
> that gcc didn't like it as much as clang.
>

I was reviewing this patch and here are a few comments,

+static void
+ExplainNodePerProcess(ExplainState *es, bool *opened_group,
+ int worker_number, Instrumentation *instrument)
+{

A small description about this routine would be helpful and will give the
file a consistent look.

Also, I noticed that the worker details are displayed for sort node even
without verbose, but for scans it is only with verbose. Am I missing
something or there is something behind? However, I am not sure if this is
the introduced by this patch-set.

--
Regards,
Rafia Sabih

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2019-11-07 10:52:42 Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message.
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2019-11-07 10:19:51 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions