Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZfgfQNUESn3yfP1L2qdPw+MtqeX1f+ubo6U4h3XgGuyQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > I have created three patches (a) move InstrStartParallelQuery from its > original location so that we perform it just before ExecutorRun (b) > patch to fix the gather stats by calling shutdown at appropriate place > and allow stats collection in ExecShutdownNode (c) Probit calling > ExecShutdownNode if there is a possibility of backward scans (I have > done some basic tests with this patch, if we decide to proceed with > it, then some more verification and testing would be required). > > I think we should commit first two patches as that fixes the problem > being discussed in this thread and then do some additional > verification for the third patch (mentioned in option c). I can > understand if people want to commit the third patch before the second > patch, so let me know what you guys think. I'm happy with the first two patches. In the third one, I don't think "See ExecLimit" is a good thing to put a comment like this, because it's too hard to find the comment to which it refers, and because future commits are likely to edit or remove that comment without noticing the references to it from elsewhere. Instead I would just write, in all three places, /* If we know we won't need to back up, we can release resources at this point. */ or something like that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: