On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:38 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
>>> One small point which I was a little unsure of in the attached is,
>>> should the "if (aggref->aggdirectargs)" part of
>>> count_agg_clauses_walker() be within the "if
>>> (!context->combineStates)". I simply couldn't decide. We currently
>>
On 13 April 2016 at 08:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM, David Rowley
> wrote:
>> I realised a few days ago that the parallel aggregate code does not
>> cost for the combine, serialisation and deserialisation functions at
>> all.
>
> Oops.
>
>> I've attached a patch which
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 8:47 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> I realised a few days ago that the parallel aggregate code does not
> cost for the combine, serialisation and deserialisation functions at
> all.
Oops.
> I've attached a patch which fixes this.
I've committed this patch. I wonder if it's g
Hi,
I realised a few days ago that the parallel aggregate code does not
cost for the combine, serialisation and deserialisation functions at
all.
I've attached a patch which fixes this.
One small point which I was a little unsure of in the attached is,
should the "if (aggref->aggdirectargs)" par
