Re: ExecGather() + nworkers

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Haribabu Kommi
> >> > <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Amit Kapila <
> amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Changed the code such that nworkers_launched gets used wherever
> >> >> > appropriate instead of nworkers. This includes places other than
> >> >> > pointed out above.
> >> >>
> >> >> The changes of the patch are simple optimizations that are trivial.
> >> >> I didn't find any problem regarding the changes. I think the same
> >> >> optimization is required in "ExecParallelFinish" function also.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is already one change as below for ExecParallelFinish() in
> patch.
> >> >
> >> > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ ExecParallelFinish(ParallelExecutorInfo *pei)
> >> >
> >> > WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(pei->pcxt);
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > /* Next, accumulate buffer usage. */
> >> >
> >> > - for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers; ++i)
> >> >
> >> > + for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers_launched; ++i)
> >> >
> >> > InstrAccumParallelQuery(&pei->buffer_usage[i]);
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Can you be slightly more specific, where exactly you are expecting
> more
> >> > changes?
> >>
> >> I missed it during the comparison with existing code and patch.
> >> Everything is fine with the patch. I marked the patch as ready for
> >> committer.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> OK, committed.
>
>
Thanks.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com