Re: ExecGather() + nworkers

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ExecGather() + nworkers
Date: 2016-03-04 11:33:10
Message-ID: CAA4eK1KO0m-s7Q-mfeoXBRCcBq7EpQsZyUwBb6qwy6qjq-sTuA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-03-04 11:35:47 Re: Greeting for coming back, and where is PostgreSQL going
Previous Message MauMau 2016-03-04 11:20:10 Greeting for coming back, and where is PostgreSQL going