From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: parallel append vs. simple UNION ALL |
Date: | 2018-03-13 04:35:54 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRcvSdUpK9jcbf+F-wO2Km4h7h_57BfSvkGZXJSdDNzNKA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> 0003
>> Probably we want to rename generate_union_path() as generate_union_rel() or
>> generate_union_paths() since the function doesn't return a path anymore.
>> Similarly for generate_nonunion_path().
>
> Good point. Changed.
It looks like it was not changed in all the places. make falied. I
have fixed all the instances of these two functions in the attached
patchset (only 0003 changes). Please check.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Let-Parallel-Append-over-simple-UNION-ALL-have-parti.patch | text/x-patch | 9.2 KB |
0002-Rewrite-recurse_union_children-to-iterate-rather-tha.patch | text/x-patch | 5.7 KB |
0003-Generate-a-separate-upper-relation-for-each-stage-of.patch | text/x-patch | 21.3 KB |
0004-Consider-Parallel-Append-as-a-way-to-implement-a-uni.patch | text/x-patch | 5.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-03-13 05:03:45 | Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
Previous Message | Charles Cui | 2018-03-13 04:29:15 | Re: GSOC 2018 proposal |