On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andr...@visena.com> wrote:
> På torsdag 16. juni 2016 kl. 20:19:44, skrev Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > > 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 > for > > parallel query. I have implemented such a guc and choose to keep the > name > > as min_parallel_relation_size. > > Pushed with minor adjustments. My first experiments with this say that > we should have done this long ago: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/22782.1466100...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > > 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 ... > > regards, tom lane > > > As of 4c56f3269a84a81461cc53941e0eee02fc920ab6 I'm still getting it in one > of my queries: > ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist > I am working on preparing a patch to fix this issue. > Am I missing something? > No, the fix is still not committed. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
