Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmobPKA9Fdco3OnwduVcL4zdHkbeMf4LpMwY7SuWNTjFgVQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:45 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we don't want to go with the upperrel logic, then maybe we should
> consider just merging some of the other changes from my previous patch
> in 0003* patch you have posted and then see if it gets rid of all the
> cases where we are seeing a regression with this new approach.

Which changes are you talking about?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Следующее
От: Eren Başak
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend