From: | Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Pengzhou Tang <ptang(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel grouping sets |
Date: | 2020-01-19 08:52:40 |
Message-ID: | CAN_9JTx3NM12ZDzEYcOVLFiCBvwMHyM0gENvtTpKBoOOgcs=kw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I realized that there are two patches in this thread that are
implemented according to different methods, which causes confusion. So I
decide to update this thread with only one patch, i.e. the patch for
'Implementation 1' as described in the first email and then move the
other patch to a separate thread.
With this idea, here is the patch for 'Implementation 1' that is rebased
with the latest master.
Thanks
Richard
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 3:24 PM Richard Guo <riguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 10:03 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 07:07:22PM +0800, Pengzhou Tang wrote:
>> > Richard pointed out that he get incorrect results with the patch I
>> > attached, there are bugs somewhere,
>> > I fixed them now and attached the newest version, please refer to [1]
>> for
>> > the fix.
>>
>> Mr Robot is reporting that the latest patch fails to build at least on
>> Windows. Could you please send a rebase? I have moved for now the
>> patch to next CF, waiting on author.
>
>
> Thanks for reporting this issue. Here is the rebase.
>
> Thanks
> Richard
>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0001-Implementing-parallel-grouping-sets.patch | application/octet-stream | 24.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-19 10:24:16 | Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2020-01-19 08:09:56 | Re: range_agg |