Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1L6ZpPgw9dyR=gEY1Hn8bkJOtwjtV2ahJykORNUBD1_xg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > The attached patch fixes both the review comments as discussed above. > > > that should be fixed by turning costs on the explain, as is the tradition. > Right. BTW, did you get a chance to run the original test (for which you have reported the problem) with this patch? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: