From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel.sgml for Gather with InitPlans |
Date: | 2018-05-09 03:21:20 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K561gz10wf=Vs_J4NaF=krmeU-3kfW5npY_g8=T=2KzQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think we can cover InitPlan and Subplans that can be parallelized in
>> a separate section "Parallel Subplans" or some other heading. I think
>> as of now we have enabled parallel subplans and initplans in a
>> limited, but useful cases (as per TPC-H benchmark) and it might be
>> good to cover them in a separate section. I can come up with an
>> initial patch (or I can review it if you write the patch) if you and
>> or others think that makes sense.
>
> We could go that way, but what I wrote is short and -- I think -- accurate.
>
Okay, again thinking about it after your explanation, it appears
correct to me, but it was not apparent on the first read. I think
other alternatives could be (a) Evaluation of initplan OR (b)
Execution of initplan. I think it makes sense to add what you have
written or one of the alternatives suggested by me as you deem most
appropriate. I think one can always write a detailed explanation as a
separate patch.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-05-09 04:14:15 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-05-09 02:59:15 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |