| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-11-16 13:17:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+PyDbLv10vUTgc1cxRKQ7squFOf9JYS4yYAeQh2NiT3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> And perhaps associated PIDs?
> >>
> >> Yeah, that can be useful, if others also feel like it is important, I
can
> >> look into preparing a patch for the same.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> Thom, what do you think the EXPLAIN output should look like,
> specifically? Or anyone else who feels like answering.
>
> I don't think it would be very useful to repeat the entire EXPLAIN
> output n times, once per worker. That sounds like a loser.
>
Yes, it doesn't seem good idea to repeat the information, but what
about the cases when different workers perform scan on different
relations (partitions in case of Append node) or may be performs a
different operation in Sort or join node parallelism.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-11-16 13:21:40 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-11-16 12:51:36 | Re: proposal: multiple psql option -c |