Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com
Date: 2017-12-13 21:02:01
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaFaWQKoEAt9O1huKoQ-0ofOiOkfeUAnzY-UHyygQ2CMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Uh, should I just revert that commit entirely first, and then we can
>> commit the new fix afterward?
>
> Yes. I have already extracted the test case of that commit to the new
> patch which is what we need from that commit.

OK, done.

--
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 2017-12-13 21:21:59 Re: Parallel Index Scan vs BTP_DELETED and BTP_HALF_DEAD
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-13 19:50:40 Re: Inconsistency in plpgsql's error context reports