| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrien Nayrat <adrien(dot)nayrat(at)anayrat(dot)info>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation |
| Date: | 2018-07-29 21:49:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=1o8SQysgbLxgShVXN9hZ9tQGWJi9-HvuwvkbzzdvN5yg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch]
+ plans just as they can in any other plan. However, in a parallel plan,
+ it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a
+ <literal>Parallel Append</literal> node.
Maybe drop "it is also possible that "? It seems a bit unnecessary
and sounds a bit odd followed by "may <verb>", but maybe it's just me.
+ Also, unlike a regular <literal>Append</literal> node, which can only have
+ partial children when used within a parallel plan, <literal>Parallel
+ Append</literal> node can have both partial and non-partial child plans.
Missing "a" before "<literal>Parallel".
+ Non-partial children will be scanned by only a single worker, since
Are we using "worker" in a more general sense that possibly includes
the leader? Hmm, yes, other text on this page does that too. Ho hum.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2018-07-29 22:56:24 | Re: Add SKIP LOCKED to VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-07-29 21:49:41 | Re: Bizarre behavior in libpq's searching of ~/.pgpass |