On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robertmh...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','robertmh...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > 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. > ... node *need* not be parallel aware? Thanks, Amit
