Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200407030915.pfhncuknhrn3wxg4@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:00:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I came to the same conclusion (that the change in TuplesortMethod >> definiton is the culprit) a while ago and was about to push a fix that >> initialized it correctly in ExecSortInitializeDSM. But I agree reverting >> it back to the old definition is probably better. > >Yeah, for the moment. James would like to not have >SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS be part of the enum at all, I think, >and I can see his point --- but then we need some out-of-band >representation of "worker not done", so I'm not sure there'll be >any net reduction of cruft. Anyway that can be dealt with after >we have a stable buildfarm. > Agreed. >Note also that there's a separate comment-only patch in ><CAAaqYe9qzKbxCvSp3dfLkuS1v8KKnB7kW3z-hZ2jnAQaveSm8w@mail.gmail.com> >that shouldn't be forgotten about. > OK, I'll take care of that tomorrow. I have two smaller patches to commit in the incremental sort patchset, so I'll add it to that. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: