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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZPuQaTaHdZDiU2YE-wpJdd05f0zehiFEEBdU0FfuWT2g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Why do we need following code in both ExecAppendInitializeWorker() and
> ExecAppendInitializeDSM()? Both of those things happen before starting the
> actual execution, so one of those should suffice?
> +    /* Choose the optimal subplan to be executed. */
> +    (void) parallel_append_next(node);

ExecAppendInitializeWorker runs only in workers, but
ExecAppendInitializeDSM runs only in the leader.

> BTW, sa_finished seems to be a misnomor. The plan is not finished yet, but it
> wants no more workers. So, should it be renamed as sa_no_new_workers or
> something like that?

I think that's not going to improve clarity.  The comments can clarify
the exact semantics.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] logical replication launcher crash on buildfarm
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] temp_buffers vs temp vs local and explain