On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I'm not sure why the test for nworkers following the > > >> LaunchParallelWorkers() call doesn't look like this, though: > > >> > > >> /* Set up tuple queue readers to read the results. */ > > >> if (pcxt->nworkers_launched > 0) > > >> { > > >> ... > > >> } > > > > > > Hmm, yeah, I guess it could do that. > > > > That would make it clearer as an example. > > > > >> But going to this additional trouble (detecting no workers launched on > > >> the basis of !nworkers_launched) suggests that simply testing > > >> nworkers_launched would be wrong, which AFAICT it isn't. Can't we just > > >> do that, and in so doing also totally remove the "for" loop shown > > >> here? > > > > > > I don't see how the for loop goes away. > > > > I meant that some code in the "for" loop goes away. Not all of it. > > Just the more obscure code. As I said, I'm mostly pointing this out > > out of concern for making it clearer as example code. > > > > Right, I can write a patch to do it in a way you are suggesting if you > are not planning to do it. >
Changed the code such that nworkers_launched gets used wherever
appropriate instead of nworkers. This includes places other than
