Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=0oE=yO0Kam86W1d-iJoasWByYkcrkDoJu6t5mRhFGHkQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Hash take II |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Here's a new patch set with responses to the last batch of review comments. Rebased on top of the recent SGML->XML change. Also: 1. The final patch in the v26 patchset extended EXPLAIN ANALYZE output to show per-worker information. I'm withdrawing that patch for now. If you want to see how many tuples each backend hashed you can already do that with (ANALYZE, VERBOSE). It's a pre-existing bug that you don't get batch/bucket/size info when Hash Join doesn't run in the leader, and it's a pre-existing bug that EXPLAIN doesn't show information for the leader separately. I decided that it's not this patchset's job to fix that stuff, and it's not entirely clear what the best approach is anyway. Let's discuss the way that information is captured and displayed separately from the Parallel Hash feature. 2. I found a way to crash v26 by starting a worker very late. Fixed. Unfortunately I saw a one-off case of an assertion failure in ExecParallelHashRepartitionRest()/sts_begin_parallel_scan() on Travis CI that I can't explain. I haven't been able to reproduce it there or on any other machine since. I am still looking into it. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: