| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation |
| Date: | 2018-05-08 13:15:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobFyhhWUcLYOXBwAdEwtgyLG4G-dqx=p-ibhrkFFMtQDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I
> think it needs to be in a new <sect2> as the same level as those
> others. It's a different kind of thing.
I'm a little skeptical about that idea because I'm not sure it's
really in the same category as far as importance is concerned, but I
don't have a better idea. Here's a patch. I'm worried this is too
much technical jargon, but I don't know how to explain it any more
simply.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| parallel-append-doc.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2018-05-08 13:19:31 | Re: MAP syntax for arrays |
| Previous Message | Ildar Musin | 2018-05-08 12:57:14 | Re: MAP syntax for arrays |