From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Documentation refinement for Parallel Scans |
Date: | 2022-10-20 06:33:34 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvrzaSUEyoEOORrZXvELddXaoit1e+Pp07qOu+9o6K390A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 16:03, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As said in parallel.smgl:
>
> In a parallel sequential scan, the table's blocks will be divided among the cooperating processes. Blocks are handed out one at a time, so that access to the table remains sequential.
> Shall we update the documents?
Yeah, 56788d215 should have updated that. Seems I didn't expect that
level of detail in the docs. I've attached a patch to address this.
I didn't feel the need to go into too much detail about how the sizes
of the ranges are calculated. I tried to be brief, but I think I did
leave enough in there so that a reader will know that we don't just
make the range length <nblocks> / <nworkers>.
I'll push this soon if nobody has any other wording suggestions.
Thanks for the report.
David
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_parallel_seqscan_docs.patch | text/plain | 786 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-10-20 07:08:36 | RE: Logical replication timeout problem |
Previous Message | Fabrice Chapuis | 2022-10-20 05:46:50 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |