From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal : Parallel Merge Join |
Date: | 2017-03-07 16:58:00 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY6kiJ0M5vv1uPaV24AmhRdXqkWzcmj7gd5ZQvaZhy61Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> You're right to be confused, because that seems to be a bug in the
>> existing code. There seems to be no guarantee that the cheapest
>> parallel-safe path will be in the cheapest_parameterized_paths list.
>> I'll go fix that.
>
> Okay, Done the simmilar changes in sort_inner_and_outer as well.
>>
>> As a matter of style, when testing a value of type "bool", write if
>> (x) or if (!x). When testing a variable of some other type, say int,
>> write if (x == 0) or if (x != 0) or whatever.
>
> Done
>
> Apart from this, there was one problem in match_unsorted_outer (in
> v10), Basically, if inner_cheapest_total was not parallel_safe then I
> was always getting parallel safe inner. But, we should not do anything
> if jointype was JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, so fixed that also.
This version looks fine to me, so committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-03-07 17:00:24 | Re: Proposal : Parallel Merge Join |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-03-07 16:56:27 | Re: ALTER PUBLICATION and segmentation fault |