| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Append implementation |
| Date: | 2017-10-05 15:43:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LgEeFss-wB7p=6OQCKgjBR_ASwn+CAUZKDF5LHP5T+PQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Okay, but can't we try to pick the cheapest partial path for master
>> backend and maybe master backend can try to work on a partial path
>> which is already picked up by some worker.
>
> Well, the master backend is typically going to be the first process to
> arrive at the Parallel Append because it's already running, whereas
> the workers have to start.
>
Sure, the leader can pick the cheapest partial path to start with.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-05 15:43:50 | Re: utility commands benefiting from parallel plan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-05 14:57:00 | Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |