Re: Documentation refinement for Parallel Scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Documentation refinement for Parallel Scans
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvrzaSUEyoEOORrZXvELddXaoit1e+Pp07qOu+9o6K390A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Documentation refinement for Parallel Scans  (Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Documentation refinement for Parallel Scans  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 16:03, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> As said in parallel.smgl:
>
> In a parallel sequential scan, the table's blocks will be divided among the cooperating processes. Blocks are handed
outone at a time, so that access to the table remains sequential.
 

> Shall we update the documents?

Yeah, 56788d215 should have updated that. Seems I didn't expect that
level of detail in the docs. I've attached a patch to address this.

I didn't feel the need to go into too much detail about how the sizes
of the ranges are calculated. I tried to be brief, but I think I did
leave enough in there so that a reader will know that we don't just
make the range length <nblocks> / <nworkers>.

I'll push this soon if nobody has any other wording suggestions.

Thanks for the report.

David

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabrice Chapuis
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical replication timeout problem
Next
From: "wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: Logical replication timeout problem