Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Date: 2016-09-07 00:52:27
Message-ID: CAM3SWZQdgG=4kcuTd_rK6p5hQBF8EzomXVQ0RfJmJvHX5pK7sw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> However, I agree that it's not worth the risk conflating the two
> optimizations. That one can be done later as a separate patch.

I'm rather fond of the assertions about tape number that exist within
root_displace currently. But, yeah, maybe.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-09-07 00:56:23 Re: Logical Replication WIP
Previous Message Claudio Freire 2016-09-07 00:50:42 Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)