| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
| Date: | 2018-03-27 11:42:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobPKA9Fdco3OnwduVcL4zdHkbeMf4LpMwY7SuWNTjFgVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we don't want to go with the upperrel logic, then maybe we should
> consider just merging some of the other changes from my previous patch
> in 0003* patch you have posted and then see if it gets rid of all the
> cases where we are seeing a regression with this new approach.
Which changes are you talking about?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eren Başak | 2018-03-27 11:50:35 | Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2018-03-27 11:30:54 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |