Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: [DESIGN] ParallelAppend
Date: 2015-11-23 17:09:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaCordqW=_QVoaUw_GhQ3kpt4bPTrhvbpxGu1eT4AP5LQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Without this patch, that 0.5 (or 50% of leaders effort) is considered for
> Gather node irrespective of the number of workers or other factors, but
> I think with Patch that is no longer true and that's what I am worrying
> about.

Nope, that patch does not change that at all. We probably should, but
this patch does not.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-11-23 17:12:23 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-11-23 17:04:29 Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes