| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query running for very long time (server hanged) with parallel append |
| Date: | 2018-02-06 18:50:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYqdC+9U8mLYkUgM=CaBt6Pzz4R_YNboqDbW-LvUaHO+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-hang-issue-rmh.patch | application/octet-stream | 875 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-02-06 19:03:29 | Re: Add more information_schema columns |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-06 18:33:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |