Horton

Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Adrien NAYRAT <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, "Jonathan S. Katz" <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-08-05T12:08:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 8:08 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2018-Aug-03, Adrien NAYRAT wrote:
>
>> On 08/03/2018 10:39 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > Thanks.  I have pushed those two patches.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> I am marking this open item as closed.  If that's wrong, let's hear why
>

Thanks, it is not wrong.  I initially thought I will close it after
committing the pending patch which I just posted.  However, it is okay
as that is to address a somewhat related, but a different issue.

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

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.