Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com');>> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com');>> wrote:
> > > It's good to have your perspective on how this can be improved, and
> > > I'm definitely willing to write more documentation. Any lack in that
> > > area is probably due to being too close to the subject area, having
> > > spent several years on parallelism in general, and 200+ emails on
> > > parallel sequential scan in particular. Your point about the lack of
> > > a good header file comment for execParallel.c is a good one, and I'll
> > > rectify that next week.
> >
> > Here is a patch to add a hopefully-useful file header comment to
> > execParallel.c. I included one for nodeGather.c as well, which seems
> > to be contrary to previous practice, but actually it seems like
> > previous practice is not the greatest: surely it's not self-evident
> > what all of the executor nodes do.
> >
>
> + * any ParamListInfo associated witih the query, buffer usage info, and
> + * the actual plan to be passed down to the worker.
>
> typo 'witih'.
>
> + * return the results. Therefore, a plan used with a single-copy Gather
> + * node not be parallel-aware.
>
> "node not" seems to be incomplete.
>

... node *need* not be parallel aware?

Thanks,
Amit