On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Haribabu Kommi < > kommi.harib...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> > Changed the code such that nworkers_launched gets used wherever > >> > appropriate instead of nworkers. This includes places other than > >> > pointed out above. > >> > >> The changes of the patch are simple optimizations that are trivial. > >> I didn't find any problem regarding the changes. I think the same > >> optimization is required in "ExecParallelFinish" function also. > >> > > > > There is already one change as below for ExecParallelFinish() in patch. > > > > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ ExecParallelFinish(ParallelExecutorInfo *pei) > > > > WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(pei->pcxt); > > > > > > > > /* Next, accumulate buffer usage. */ > > > > - for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers; ++i) > > > > + for (i = 0; i < pei->pcxt->nworkers_launched; ++i) > > > > InstrAccumParallelQuery(&pei->buffer_usage[i]); > > > > > > Can you be slightly more specific, where exactly you are expecting more > > changes? > > I missed it during the comparison with existing code and patch. > Everything is fine with the patch. I marked the patch as ready for > committer. > > Thanks! With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
