From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Allowing parallel-safe initplans
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:00:51 -0400
Message-ID: <1315906.1681394451@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMbWs4_7hFTDjYzJs6sYpceY_0MFRA+DhdKxAMOREP084vr2pA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1129530.1681317832@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAMbWs4_7hFTDjYzJs6sYpceY_0MFRA+DhdKxAMOREP084vr2pA@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> * For the diff in standard_planner, I was wondering why not move the
> initPlans up to the Gather node, just as we did before. So I tried that
> way but did not notice the breakage of regression tests as stated in the
> comments. Would you please confirm that?
Try it with debug_parallel_query = regress.
> * Not related to this patch. In SS_make_initplan_from_plan, the comment
> says that the node's parParam and args lists remain empty. I wonder if
> we need to explicitly set node->parParam and node->args to NIL before
> that comment, or can we depend on makeNode to initialize them to NIL?
I'm generally a fan of explicitly initializing fields, but the basic
argument for that is greppability. That comment serves the purpose,
so I don't feel a big need to change it.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, guofenglinux@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Allowing parallel-safe initplans
In-Reply-To: <1315906.1681394451@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox