| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
| Date: | 2018-07-06 19:14:01 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaK-xSRXRo=6W9UTshcGXOM78Y4NoKESxVeYo+8nL46kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I have tried this idea, but it doesn't completely solve the problem.
> The problem is that nodes below LIMIT won't get a chance to accumulate
> the stats as they won't be able to call InstrStopNode.
I'm not sure I understand. Why not? I see that we'd need to insert
an extra call to InstrStopNode() if we were stopping the node while it
was running, because then InstrStartNode() would have already been
done, but the corresponding call to InstrStopNode() would not have
been done. But I'm not sure how that would happen in this case. Can
you explain further?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2018-07-06 19:15:31 | Re: pg_recvlogical use of SIGHUP |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2018-07-06 19:02:39 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |