On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com> wrote:
På torsdag 16. juni 2016 kl. 20:19:44, skrev Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> min_parallel_relation_size, or min_parallelizable_relation_size, or >> something like that?
> You are right that such a variable will make it simpler to write tests for > parallel query. I have implemented such a guc and choose to keep the name > as min_parallel_relation_size.
> One thing to note is that in function > create_plain_partial_paths(), curently it is using PG_INT32_MAX/3 for > parallel_threshold to check for overflow, I have changed it to INT_MAX/3 so > as to be consistent with guc.c. I am not sure if it is advisable to use > PG_INT32_MAX in guc.c as other similar parameters use INT_MAX.
I agree that using INT_MAX is more consistent with the code elsewhere in guc.c, and more correct given that we declare the variable in question as int not int32. But you need to include <limits.h> to use INT_MAX ...
regards, tom lane
As of 4c56f3269a84a81461cc53941e0eee02fc920ab6 I'm still getting it in one of my queries:
ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist
I am working on preparing a patch to fix this issue.
Am I missing something?
No, the fix is still not committed.
Ah, I thought Tom pushed a fix, but it apparently was another fix.