On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Amit Kapila
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> >> If we are going to add a new parameter to BackgroundWorker
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> If we are going to add a new parameter to BackgroundWorker structure,
>> then the same needs to be updated in docs [1] as well.
>
> Right,
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> If we are going to add a new parameter to BackgroundWorker structure,
> then the same needs to be updated in docs [1] as well.
Right, good point.
> I think adding
> a new parameter to this structure might require some
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Robert Haas
wrote:
> > The other way to fix this is to pass down the index
> > that the leader assigns to any given worker, and have the worker use
> > that
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> The other way to fix this is to pass down the index
> that the leader assigns to any given worker, and have the worker use
> that index instead of allocating its own separate index after
> connecting to the DSM segment.
While testing last night, I discovered a serious case of brain fade in
parallel.c; the same conceptual mistake has also spread to
nodeGather.c. parallel.c creates an array of ParallelWorkerInfo
structures, which are defined like this:
typedef struct ParallelWorkerInfo
{