Re: ExecGather() + nworkers

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I missed it during the comparison with existing code and patch.
> Everything is fine with the patch. I marked the patch as ready for
> committer.
>
>
Thanks!

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