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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1L6ZpPgw9dyR=gEY1Hn8bkJOtwjtV2ahJykORNUBD1_xg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] why not parallel seq scan for slow functions
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The attached patch fixes both the review comments as discussed above.
>
>
> that should be fixed by turning costs on the explain, as is the tradition.
>

Right.  BTW, did you get a chance to run the original test (for which
you have reported the problem) with this patch?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Следующее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] src/test/subscription/t/002_types.pl hanging onparticular environment