From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Index-only scan |
Date: | 2017-02-15 19:36:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob18Rskd6CgvdOK+Si3j2_6SBKfpp=XDWPgsu6CMAWueg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Rafia Sabih
<rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Please find the attached file rebased patch of parallel index-only
> scan on the latest Parallel index-scan patch [1].
This again needs minor rebasing but basically looks fine. It's a
pretty straightforward extension of the parallel index scan work.
Please make sure that this is pgindent-clean - i.e. that when you
pgindent the files that it touches, pgindent doesn't change anything
of the same parts of the file that you've changed in the patch. Also,
I believe Amit may have made some adjustments to the logic in
nodeIndexScan.c; if so, it would be good to make sure that the
nodeIndexOnlyScan.c changes match what was done there. In particular,
he's got this:
if (reset_parallel_scan && node->iss_ScanDesc->parallel_scan)
index_parallelrescan(node->iss_ScanDesc);
And you've got this:
+ if (reset_parallel_scan)
+ index_parallelrescan(node->ioss_ScanDesc);
There might be some other inconsistencies as well that I didn't notice
on a quick look.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryan Murphy | 2017-02-15 19:37:14 | Re: Does having a NULL column automatically exclude the table from the tupleDesc cache? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-15 19:24:24 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |