Horton

Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Append implementation

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrien Nayrat <adrien.nayrat@anayrat.info>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>, amul sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-05-08T21:05:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> It's not a scan, it's not a join and it's not an aggregation so I
>> think it needs to be in a new <sect2> as the same level as those
>> others.  It's a different kind of thing.
>
> I'm a little skeptical about that idea because I'm not sure it's
> really in the same category as far as importance is concerned, but I
> don't have a better idea.  Here's a patch.  I'm worried this is too
> much technical jargon, but I don't know how to explain it any more
> simply.

+    scanning them more than once would preduce duplicate results.  Plans that

s/preduce/produce/

+    <literal>Append</literal> or <literal>MergeAppend</literal> plan node.
vs.
+    Append</literal> of regular <literal>Index Scan</literal> plans; each

I think we should standardise on <literal>Foo Bar</literal>,
<literal>FooBar</literal> or <emphasis>foo bar</emphasis> when
discussing executor nodes on this page.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Update parallel.sgml for Parallel Append

  2. Support Parallel Append plan nodes.

  3. Remove BufFile's isTemp flag.

  4. Improve comments for parallel executor estimation functions.

  5. Separate reinitialization of shared parallel-scan state from ExecReScan.

  6. Eat XIDs more efficiently in recovery TAP test.

  7. Avoid syntax error on platforms that have neither LOCALE_T nor ICU.

  8. Preparatory refactoring for parallel merge join support.