Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date: 2018-01-26 19:21:26
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkqFmRQtyiYVg7yDvp3zCzMg=kmhHF1Ud-m0G3cAEPs1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hmm, I like the idea of making it a #define instead of having it
> depend on parallel_leader_participation. Let's do that. If the
> consensus is later that it was the wrong decision, it'll be easy to
> change it back.

WFM.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-01-26 19:38:17 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-26 19:17:01 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)