On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>> I had imagined that WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() would give me an
>> error in the style of WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), without
>> actually waiting for the parallel workers to finish.
>
> +1. If we're going to go that route, and that seems to be the
> consensus, then I think an error is more appropriate than returning an
> updated worker count.
Great.
Should I wait for Amit's WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() patch to be
posted, reviewed, and committed, or would you like to see what I came
up with ("The next revision of the patch will make the
leader-participates-as-worker spool/Tuplelsortstate start and finish
sorting before the main leader spool/Tuplelsortstate is even started")
today?
--
Peter Geoghegan
