On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > Thanks. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
