From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "Adam, Etienne (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <etienne(dot)adam(at)nokia(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Duquesne, Pierre (Nokia-TECH/Issy Les Moulineaux)" <pierre(dot)duquesne(at)nokia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
Date: | 2017-08-29 03:02:35 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZYQJyFEr3hCZcagbVTnniMPBQ6S-su26m_GHEjBA45+A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the meantime, I think what we should do is commit the bug fix more or
> less as I have it, and then work on Amit's concern about losing parallel
> efficiency by separating the resetting of shared parallel-scan state
> into a new plan tree traversal that's done before launching new worker
> processes. The only real alternative is to lobotomize the existing rescan
> optimizations, and that seems like a really poor choice from here.
There's already ExecParallelReinitialize, which could be made to walk
the nodes in addition to what it does already, but I don't understand
exactly what else needs fixing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-08-29 07:37:01 | Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-29 02:17:20 | Re: [BUGS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-08-29 03:07:32 | Re: show "aggressive" or not in autovacuum logs |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-29 02:59:29 | Re: hash partitioning based on v10Beta2 |