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
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 |