RE: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers
От | Hou, Zhijie |
---|---|
Тема | RE: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d5416a5e292249ebbabd8bbe592f0b70@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers ("Seamus Abshere" <seamus@abshere.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: A reloption for partitioned tables - parallel_workers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> hi, > > Here we go, my first patch... solves > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/7d6fdc20-857c-4cbe-ae2e-c0ff9520 > ed55@www.fastmail.com > Hi, partitioned_table_reloptions(Datum reloptions, bool validate) { + static const relopt_parse_elt tab[] = { + {"parallel_workers", RELOPT_TYPE_INT, + offsetof(StdRdOptions, parallel_workers)}, + }; + return (bytea *) build_reloptions(reloptions, validate, RELOPT_KIND_PARTITIONED, - 0, NULL, 0); + sizeof(StdRdOptions), + tab, lengthof(tab)); } I noticed that you plan to store the parallel_workers in the same struct(StdRdOptions) as normal heap relation. It seems better to store it in a separate struct. And as commit 1bbd608 said: ---- > Splitting things has the advantage to > make the information stored in rd_options include only the necessary > information, reducing the amount of memory used for a relcache entry > with partitioned tables if new reloptions are introduced at this level. ---- What do you think? Best regards, Houzj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: