| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |
| Date: | 2017-12-06 06:07:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jbe9pjc65c2FG2e6X_Xc=CTDBReMDV6LZ6UbAyyK9q0A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah, that sounds better, so modified the patch accordingly.
>
> I committed this to master and REL_10_STABLE, but it conflicts all
> over the place on 9.6.
>
I will try to prepare the patch for 9.6, but I think it might be
better if we first decide what to do about the open issue for sort and
hash node as there can be some overlap based on what approach we
choose to fix it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | amul sul | 2017-12-06 06:15:17 | Re: pgsql: Support Parallel Append plan nodes. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-12-06 06:05:09 | Re: explain analyze output with parallel workers - question about meaning of information for explain.depesz.com |