| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-01-19 12:52:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZgLsjM_tmE9jJE+CcXdmEojWT5_kGr6tksEccJCH59og@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Review of your patch:
>
> * SerializedReindexState could use some comments. At least a one liner
> stating its basic purpose.
Added a comment.
> * The "System index reindexing support" comment block could do with a
> passing acknowledgement of the fact that this is serialized for
> parallel workers.
Done.
> * Maybe the "Serialize reindex state" comment within
> InitializeParallelDSM() should instead say something like "Serialize
> indexes-pending-reindex state".
That would require corresponding changes in a bunch of other places,
possibly including the function names. I think it's better to keep
the function names shorter and the comments matching the function
names, so I did not make this change.
> Other than that, looks good to me. It's a simple patch with a clear purpose.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2018-01-19 13:14:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Secondary index access optimizations |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2018-01-19 12:33:05 | Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions |