From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed(dot)90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Index Scans |
Date: | 2017-02-15 12:47:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoak=H684_9n32Kq1soa=0D4jXpSWt9mfEVjVES=z8fuBg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 503 토토 결과 페치 실패 |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here second part of the comment (but have not yet advanced ..) seems
> to be slightly misleading because this state has nothing to do with
> the advancement of scan keys.
>
> I have not changed this because I am not sure what you have in mind.
OK, I rewrote that to be (hopefully) more clear.
> I have verified all your changes and they look good to me.
Cool. Committed. I also changed the wait event to be BtreePage in
the docs + pg_stat_activity, and moved it into alphabetical order in
the switch and the enum.
>> I can't easily test this because your second patch doesn't apply,
>
> I have tried and it works for me on latest code except for one test
> output file which could have been excluded. I wonder whether you are
> first applying the GUC related patch [1] before applying the optimizer
> support related patch. In anycase, to avoid confusion I am attaching
> all the three patches with this e-mail.
Oh, duh. I forgot about the prerequisite patch. Sorry.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-15 12:52:54 | Re: Sum aggregate calculation for single precsion real |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-15 12:35:35 | Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags |