On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> min_parallel_relation_size, or min_parallelizable_relation_size, or
> >> something like that?
> > You are right that such a variable will make it simpler to write tests
> > parallel query.  I have implemented such a guc and choose to keep the
> > as min_parallel_relation_size.
> Pushed with minor adjustments.


> > One thing to note is that in function
> > create_plain_partial_paths(), curently it is using PG_INT32_MAX/3 for
> > parallel_threshold to check for overflow, I have changed it to
INT_MAX/3 so
> > as to be consistent with guc.c.  I am not sure if it is advisable to use
> > PG_INT32_MAX in guc.c as other similar parameters use INT_MAX.
> I agree that using INT_MAX is more consistent with the code elsewhere in
> guc.c, and more correct given that we declare the variable in question
> as int not int32.  But you need to include <limits.h> to use INT_MAX ...

I wonder why it has not given me any compilation error/warning.  I have
tried it on both Windows and CentOS, before sending the patch.

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

Reply via email to