Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-08-02 Thread Adrien NAYRAT
On 08/01/2018 03:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote: Committed to master and v11. Thanks for the review. Thanks!

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-08-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> New version attached. > > Looks good to me. Committed to master and v11. Thanks for the review. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-07-30 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > New version attached. Looks good to me. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-07-30 Thread Robert Haas
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch] > > +plans just as they can in any other plan. However, in a parallel plan, > +it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-07-29 Thread Thomas Munro
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > [parallel-append-doc-v2.patch] +plans just as they can in any other plan. However, in a parallel plan, +it is also possible that the planner may choose to substitute a +Parallel Append node. Maybe drop "it is also possible that

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-05-09 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > +scanning them more than once would preduce duplicate results. Plans that > > s/preduce/produce/ Fixed, thanks. > +Append or MergeAppend plan node. > vs. > +Append of regular Index Scan plans; each

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-05-08 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro > wrote: >> It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I >> think it needs to be in a new as the same level as those >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-05-08 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I > think it needs to be in a new as the same level as those > others. It's a different kind of thing. I'm a little skeptical about that idea

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-05-07 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Adrien Nayrat > wrote: >> I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation : >>

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-05-07 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Adrien Nayrat wrote: > I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation : > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html I agree it might be nice to mention this somewhere on this page, but I'm

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2018-04-07 Thread Adrien Nayrat
Hello, I notice Parallel append is not listed on Parallel Plans documentation : https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/parallel-plans.html If you agree I can add it to Open Items. Thanks, -- Adrien NAYRAT signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-12-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:02 AM, amul sul wrote: > Here are the changes I did on v21 patch to handle crash reported by > Rajkumar[1]: > > diff --git a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c > b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c > index e3b17cf0e2..e0ee918808 100644 > ---

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-11-28 Thread amul sul
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:21 PM, amul sul wrote: > Thanks a lot Rajkumar for this test. I am able to reproduce this crash by > enabling partition wise join. > > The reason for this crash is the same as > the > previous[1] i.e node->as_whichplan > value. This time

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-11-24 Thread Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, amul sul wrote: > Look like it is the same crash what v20 claim to be fixed, indeed I > missed to add fix[1] in v20 patch, sorry about that. Attached updated > patch includes aforementioned fix. Hi, I have applied latest v21 patch, it got

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-11-22 Thread amul sul
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul wrote: >> By doing following change on the v19 patch does the fix for me: >> >> --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c >> +++

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-11-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:57 AM, amul sul wrote: > By doing following change on the v19 patch does the fix for me: > > --- a/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c > +++ b/src/backend/executor/nodeAppend.c > @@ -489,11 +489,9 @@ choose_next_subplan_for_worker(AppendState *node) >

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

2017-11-21 Thread amul sul
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Amit Khandekar wrote: > On 21 November 2017 at 12:44, Rafia Sabih > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Amit Khandekar >> wrote: >>> Thanks a lot Robert for the patch. I will