On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I had imagined that WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() would give me an >>> error in the style of WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), without >>> actually waiting for the parallel workers to finish. >> >> +1. If we're going to go that route, and that seems to be the >> consensus, then I think an error is more appropriate than returning an >> updated worker count. > > Great. > > Should I wait for Amit's WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() patch to be > posted, reviewed, and committed, or would you like to see what I came > up with ("The next revision of the patch will make the > leader-participates-as-worker spool/Tuplelsortstate start and finish > sorting before the main leader spool/Tuplelsortstate is even started") > today?
I'm busy with other things, so no rush. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
