Re: Parallel Append implementation

From: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Append implementation
Date: 2017-03-10 09:06:12
Message-ID: CAJ3gD9dwMi49pQ2vSAVjvW1zpBJmovDnmg9MZNiKR7X9s15h-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10 March 2017 at 14:05, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> The need for
>> num_workers=-1 will still be there for partial plans, because we need
>> to set it to -1 once a worker finishes a plan.
>>
>
> IIRC, we do that so that no other workers are assigned to it when
> scanning the array of plans. But with the new scheme we don't need to
> scan the non-parallel plans for when assigning plan to workers so -1
> may not be needed. I may be wrong though.
>

Still, when a worker finishes a partial subplan , it marks it as -1,
so that no new workers pick this, even if there are other workers
already executing it.

--
Thanks,
-Amit Khandekar
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rushabh Lathia 2017-03-10 09:09:22 Re: Gather Merge
Previous Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2017-03-10 09:03:13 Re: Gather Merge