Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYUQ+jN3dNw0MJzSMQfxxS=qm1FXsoJBLF1UMvR4hFrhQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch]
>
> +    plans just as they can in any other plan.  However, in a parallel plan,
> +    it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a
> +    <literal>Parallel Append</literal> node.
>
> Maybe drop "it is also possible that "?  It seems a bit unnecessary
> and sounds a bit odd followed by "may <verb>", but maybe it's just me.

Changed.

> +    Also, unlike a regular <literal>Append</literal> node, which can only have
> +    partial children when used within a parallel plan, <literal>Parallel
> +    Append</literal> node can have both partial and non-partial child plans.
>
> Missing "a" before "<literal>Parallel".

Fixed.

> +    Non-partial children will be scanned by only a single worker, since
>
> Are we using "worker" in a more general sense that possibly includes
> the leader?  Hmm, yes, other text on this page does that too.  Ho hum.

Tried to be more careful about this.

New version attached.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Goldshteyn
Date:
Subject: Re: Would like to help with documentation for Postgres 11
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: request for new parameter for disable promote (slave only mode)