On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's good to have your perspective on how this can be improved, and > > I'm definitely willing to write more documentation. Any lack in that > > area is probably due to being too close to the subject area, having > > spent several years on parallelism in general, and 200+ emails on > > parallel sequential scan in particular. Your point about the lack of > > a good header file comment for execParallel.c is a good one, and I'll > > rectify that next week. > > Here is a patch to add a hopefully-useful file header comment to > execParallel.c. I included one for nodeGather.c as well, which seems > to be contrary to previous practice, but actually it seems like > previous practice is not the greatest: surely it's not self-evident > what all of the executor nodes do. >
+ * any ParamListInfo associated witih the query, buffer usage info, and + * the actual plan to be passed down to the worker. typo 'witih'. + * return the results. Therefore, a plan used with a single-copy Gather + * node not be parallel-aware. "node not" seems to be incomplete. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com