| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bert <biertie(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-12-02 06:36:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQPU-PxRGqiVafv41yNCTpmtFwkj3T11bkJO52z81G3ng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > Isn't it better to destroy the memory for readers array as that gets
>> > allocated
>> > even if there are no workers available for execution?
>> >
>> > Attached patch fixes the issue by just destroying readers array.
>>
>> Well, then you're making ExecGatherShutdownWorkers() not a no-op any
>> more. I'll go commit a combination of your two patches.
>>
>
> Thanks!
There is still an entry in the CF app for this thread as "Parallel Seq
scan". The basic infrastructure has been committed, and I understand
that this is a never-ending tasks and that there will be many
optimizations. Still, are you guys fine to switch this entry as
committed for now?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-02 06:37:30 | Re: Tab completion for ALTER COLUMN SET STATISTICS |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-02 06:30:28 | Re: psql: add \pset true/false |