Horton

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-06-08T18:04:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> So, apparently this is not a Postgres 11 open item, but rather a bug
> that goes back to pg10.  However, maybe it would be worth fixing soon
> anyway?  In particular, if we want to perturb the explain output as
> suggested upthread, maybe *that* should be considered an open item?
>
> Anyway, this has stalled for a month now.

Yeah.  I'm not willing to do anything here unilaterally.  There is
neither universal agreement that there is a problem here nor agreement
on a fix.  Unless that changes, I don't know what to do here.

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

Commits

  1. Adjust comment atop ExecShutdownNode.

  2. Prohibit shutting down resources if there is a possibility of back up.

  3. Fix buffer usage stats for parallel nodes.

  4. Match the buffer usage tracking for leader and worker backends.

  5. Improve division of labor between execParallel.c and nodeGather[Merge].c.