> Doing nothing for calls now is fine by me, though I
> agree that this could be improved at some point, as seeing only 1
> rather than N for each fetch depending on the size is a bit confusing.
I think we will need to clearly define what "calls" is. Perhaps as mentioned
above, we may need separate counters for "calls" vs "fetches". This is
definitely a separate thread.
> Doesn't this comment at the top of ExecutorRun() need an update? It
> seems to me that this comment should mention both es_total_processed
Yes, updated in v5.
> There is no need for this part in ExecutorFinish(), actually, as long
> as we always increment es_total_processed at the end ExecutorRun() for
> all the operation types?
Ah, correct. I changed that and tested again.
> - es_processed: number of tuples processed during one ExecutorRun()
> call.
> - es_total_processed: total number of tuples aggregated across all
> ExecutorRun() calls.
I thought hard about this point and for some reason I did not want to
mention ExecutorRun in the comment. But, I agree with what you suggest.
It's more clear as to the intention of the fields.
Attached is v5 addressing the comments.
Regards,
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)