| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |
| Date: | 2017-12-07 21:00:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3Fr11MeSepyPfLzAe17Toh4cKBGVyTD1au5db3UNBqvw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Right and seeing that I have prepared the patch (posted above [1])
>> which fixes it such that it will resemble the non-parallel case.
>
> Long story short, I like the patch.
LGTM. There might be an argument for clearing the instrumentation
every time on the basis that you might finish up keeping data from a
non-final loop when a worker opted not to do anything in the final
loop, but I'm not going to make that argument because I don't think it
matters. The patch makes the tests in
test-hash-join-rescan-instr-v1.patch pass (from my previous message).
Please also consider that test patch for commit.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-07 21:07:09 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-07 20:52:51 | Re: Postgres with pthread |