Re: Parallel Append implementation

>>>>
>>>
>>> I think there is some merit in separating out non-parallel and
>>> parallel plans within the same array or outside it. The current logic
>>> to assign plan to a worker looks at all the plans, unnecessarily
>>> hopping over the un-parallel ones after they are given to a worker. If
>>> we separate those two, we can keep assigning new workers to the
>>> non-parallel plans first and then iterate over the parallel ones when
>>> a worker needs a plan to execute. We might eliminate the need for
>>> special value -1 for num workers. You may separate those two kinds in
>>> two different arrays or within the same array and remember the
>>> smallest index of a parallel plan.
>
> Do you think we might get performance benefit with this ? I am looking
> more towards logic simplicity. non-parallel plans would be mostly
> likely be there only in case of UNION ALL queries, and not partitioned
> tables. And UNION ALL queries probably would have far lesser number of
> subplans, there won't be too many unnecessary hops.

A partitioned table which has foreign and local partitions would have
non-parallel and parallel plans if the foreign plans can not be
parallelized like what postgres_fdw does.

> The need for
> num_workers=-1 will still be there for partial plans, because we need
> to set it to -1 once a worker finishes a plan.
>

IIRC, we do that so that no other workers are assigned to it when
scanning the array of plans. But with the new scheme we don't need to
scan the non-parallel plans for when assigning plan to workers so -1
may not be needed. I may be wrong though.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company