On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> > It's good to have your perspective on how this can be improved, and
> > I'm definitely willing to write more documentation.  Any lack in that
> > area is probably due to being too close to the subject area, having
> > spent several years on parallelism in general, and 200+ emails on
> > parallel sequential scan in particular.  Your point about the lack of
> > a good header file comment for execParallel.c is a good one, and I'll
> > rectify that next week.
> Here is a patch to add a hopefully-useful file header comment to
> execParallel.c.  I included one for nodeGather.c as well, which seems
> to be contrary to previous practice, but actually it seems like
> previous practice is not the greatest: surely it's not self-evident
> what all of the executor nodes do.

+ * any ParamListInfo associated witih the query, buffer usage info, and
+ * the actual plan to be passed down to the worker.

typo 'witih'.

+ * return the results.  Therefore, a plan used with a single-copy Gather
+ * node not be parallel-aware.

"node not" seems to be incomplete.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Reply via email to