| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans |
| Date: | 2018-08-02 03:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20180802030847.l467vg5jxg4mxk35@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-08-02 08:21:58 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think something on the lines what Tom and you are suggesting can be
> done with the help of EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD, but I don't see the need to
> do anything for this patch. The change in nodeLimit.c is any way for
> forward scans, so there shouldn't be any need for any other check.
I think this is almost a guarantee to introduce bugs in the future. And
besides that, as Robert points out, it's essentially an exiting bug for
custom scans. Given that EXEC_FLAG_BACKWARD already exists, why not do
the right thing here?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-08-02 03:36:16 | Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-02 03:05:49 | Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files |