On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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!
OK, committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
