Re: ExecGather() + nworkers

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>> > <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Changed the code such that nworkers_launched gets used wherever
>> >> > appropriate instead of nworkers. This includes places other than
>> >> > pointed out above.
>> >>
>> >> The changes of the patch are simple optimizations that are trivial.
>> >> I didn't find any problem regarding the changes. I think the same
>> >> optimization is required in "ExecParallelFinish" function also.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is already one change as below for ExecParallelFinish() in patch.
>> >
>> > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ ExecParallelFinish(ParallelExecutorInfo *pei)
>> >
>> > WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(pei->pcxt);
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > /* Next, accumulate buffer usage. */
>> >
>> > - for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers; ++i)
>> >
>> > + for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers_launched; ++i)
>> >
>> > InstrAccumParallelQuery(&pei->buffer_usage[i]);
>> >
>> >
>> > Can you be slightly more specific, where exactly you are expecting more
>> > changes?
>>
>> I missed it during the comparison with existing code and patch.
>> Everything is fine with the patch. I marked the patch as ready for
>> committer.
>>
>
> Thanks!

OK, committed.

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