Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-tzqwxQPK7FPcnSAHZf1+_C=qfzR7MLEqdhvtdC-0YzAg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Proposal : Parallel Merge Join
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > You're right to be confused, because that seems to be a bug in the > existing code. There seems to be no guarantee that the cheapest > parallel-safe path will be in the cheapest_parameterized_paths list. > I'll go fix that. Okay, Done the simmilar changes in sort_inner_and_outer as well. > > As a matter of style, when testing a value of type "bool", write if > (x) or if (!x). When testing a variable of some other type, say int, > write if (x == 0) or if (x != 0) or whatever. Done Apart from this, there was one problem in match_unsorted_outer (in v10), Basically, if inner_cheapest_total was not parallel_safe then I was always getting parallel safe inner. But, we should not do anything if jointype was JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER, so fixed that also. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar 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
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: