On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Isn't it better to destroy the memory for readers array as that gets > >> > allocated > >> > even if there are no workers available for execution? > >> > > >> > Attached patch fixes the issue by just destroying readers array. > >> > >> Well, then you're making ExecGatherShutdownWorkers() not a no-op any > >> more. I'll go commit a combination of your two patches. > >> > > > > Thanks! > > There is still an entry in the CF app for this thread as "Parallel Seq > scan". The basic infrastructure has been committed, and I understand > that this is a never-ending tasks and that there will be many > optimizations. Still, are you guys fine to switch this entry as > committed for now? >
I am fine with it. I think the further optimizations can be done separately. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
