Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN

From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN
Date: 2020-01-25 02:39:23
Message-ID: CAAKRu_YtmwgdWmy_8_CiZMJDVF65HP15qB6=EUSv_wL1zx35CA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

So, I think from a code review perspective the code in the patches
LGTM.
As for the EXPLAIN ANALYZE tests--I don't see that many of them in
regress, so maybe that's because they aren't normally very useful. In
this case, it would only be to protect against regressions in printing
the leader instrumentation, I think.
The problem with that is, even with all the non-deterministic info
redacted, if the leader doesn't participate (which is not guaranteed),
then its stats wouldn't be printed at all and that would cause an
incorrectly failing test case...okay I just talked myself out of the
usefulness of testing this.
So, I would move it to "ready for committer", but, since it is not
applying cleanly, I have changed the status to "waiting on author".

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maciek Sakrejda 2020-01-25 03:33:18 Re: Duplicate Workers entries in some EXPLAIN plans
Previous Message Ryan Lambert 2020-01-25 02:31:14 Re: A rather hackish POC for alternative implementation of WITH TIES