Re: Parallel Index Scans

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed(dot)90(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Parallel Index Scans
Date: 2017-02-15 12:47:59
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoak=H684_9n32Kq1soa=0D4jXpSWt9mfEVjVES=z8fuBg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here second part of the comment (but have not yet advanced ..) seems
> to be slightly misleading because this state has nothing to do with
> the advancement of scan keys.
>
> I have not changed this because I am not sure what you have in mind.

OK, I rewrote that to be (hopefully) more clear.

> I have verified all your changes and they look good to me.

Cool. Committed. I also changed the wait event to be BtreePage in
the docs + pg_stat_activity, and moved it into alphabetical order in
the switch and the enum.

>> I can't easily test this because your second patch doesn't apply,
>
> I have tried and it works for me on latest code except for one test
> output file which could have been excluded. I wonder whether you are
> first applying the GUC related patch [1] before applying the optimizer
> support related patch. In anycase, to avoid confusion I am attaching
> all the three patches with this e-mail.

Oh, duh. I forgot about the prerequisite patch. Sorry.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-15 12:52:54 Re: Sum aggregate calculation for single precsion real
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-02-15 12:35:35 Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags