On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Okay, I have adjusted the patch accordingly. I have also added a >>> regression test which should produce the same result across different >>> runs, see if that looks okay to you, then it is better to add such a >>> test as well. >> >> The regression test added by patch needs cleanup at the end which I >> have added in the attached patch. > > Hmm. If we're going this way, then shouldn't we revert the changes > commit 2c09a5c12a66087218c7f8cba269cd3de51b9b82 made to > ExecParallelRetrieveInstrumentation? >
Yeah, it is better to revert it as ideally that is not required after
this patch and that is what I have tried to convey above ("Ideally, it
would have obviated the need for my previous patch which
got committed as 778e78ae." (The commit id is for branch 10,
otherwise, it is same as what you mention.)). I have locally reverted
that patch and then rebased it on top of that.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
fix_accum_instr_parallel_workers_v8.patch
Description: Binary data
