Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN
| От | Rafia Sabih |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+FpmFdQHb5ma27r4PL9tOXpwHEo4+3CXZMDJgffwRTdTh_xyw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Parallel leader process info in EXPLAIN
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 00:30, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:11 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I thought of that as a debugging feature and took it out
> because it was too verbose, but maybe it just needs to be controlled
> by the VERBOSE switch. Do you think we should put that back?
By which I mean: would you like to send a patch? :-)
Here is a new version of the "Leader:" patch, because cfbot told me
that gcc didn't like it as much as clang.
I was reviewing this patch and here are a few comments,
+static void
+ExplainNodePerProcess(ExplainState *es, bool *opened_group,
+ int worker_number, Instrumentation *instrument)
+{
+ExplainNodePerProcess(ExplainState *es, bool *opened_group,
+ int worker_number, Instrumentation *instrument)
+{
A small description about this routine would be helpful and will give the file a consistent look.
Also, I noticed that the worker details are displayed for sort node even without verbose, but for scans it is only with verbose. Am I missing something or there is something behind? However, I am not sure if this is the introduced by this patch-set.
Regards,
Rafia Sabih
Rafia Sabih
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: