| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Pengzhou Tang <ptang(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel grouping sets |
| Date: | 2020-01-23 10:47:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L_T=4FVQ58rOFjoBLkGq2yvGRGG-CemsJX01PHExU4fg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 2:23 PM Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>
> I realized that there are two patches in this thread that are
> implemented according to different methods, which causes confusion.
>
Both the idea seems to be different. Is the second approach [1]
inferior for any case as compared to the first approach? Can we keep
both approaches for parallel grouping sets, if so how? If not, then
won't the code by the first approach be useless once we commit second
approach?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-01-23 11:18:41 | Re: Online checksums patch - once again |
| Previous Message | Georgios Kokolatos | 2020-01-23 10:38:38 | Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans |