Message-ID: <e66e05bc55f5ce904e361ad17a3395ae.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoZG_6PK5F7jd9rv0P5u4bweLm4X=3oYq5P5iYwtdtikEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
    <CAA4eK1Le-c8GB2Fotrbz+9k5M5_gYRD_0bn=6u-ir3b=1u+vXQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <CA+TgmoaBpSM2Gne3UzCgf8sHrrNfw8UXCx8o+KrzTsBs85B4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
    <CAA4eK1Jox0+2_9=4N6i4dSkgFvUBg-W-nMmOpGnUe01WENfHXw@mail.gmail.com>
    <CA+TgmoYB63v_070kvQyKRPWM=nWfPsAf82r6k0i+r2Tf1mO5zQ@mail.gmail.com>
    <CAA4eK1LSDydwrNjmYSNkfJ3ZivGSWH9SVswh6QpNzsMdj_oOQA@mail.gmail.com>
    <CA+TgmobL3rzeo7XrYbat4FHR=L9+ZA4ZmzjxCvTwa-NBR=O_Sw@mail.gmail.com>
    <20180110000934.lft7ebeqek4grrlx@alap3.anarazel.de>
    <CA+Tgmob=kOVeaw3v-OCRPbmtK1qHhu3uvHV6ANxoB2xZuir_=Q@mail.gmail.com>
    <20180207184137.5mv4bipj3t7hbncv@alap3.anarazel.de>
    <CA+TgmobkN-g10qNU4-qPApAPG9w7euFJgU1Y-TGtXr9TUeZ3=w@mail.gmail.com>
    <20180227210638.caug5j5po4xk5ktf@alap3.anarazel.de>
    <CA+Tgmob2c7LVijbpWoMOBvxkZjaJ_E7ZesKKJoHTfAL1B1PYag@mail.gmail.com>
    <CA+TgmoZG_6PK5F7jd9rv0P5u4bweLm4X=3oYq5P5iYwtdtikEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:21:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node
From: "Tels" <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de>,
 "Amit Kapila" <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 "Rafia Sabih" <rafia.sabih@enterprisedb.com>,
 "PostgreSQL Developers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk

Hello Robert,

On Fri, March 2, 2018 12:22 pm, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> [ latest patches ]
>
> Committed.  Thanks for the review.

Cool :)

There is a typo, tho:

+	/*
+	 * If the counterpary is known to have attached, we can read mq_receiver
+	 * without acquiring the spinlock and assume it isn't NULL.  Otherwise,
+	 * more caution is needed.
+	 */

s/counterpary/counterparty/;

Sorry, only noticed while re-reading the thread.

Also, either a double space is missing, or one is too many:

+	/*
+	 * Separate prior reads of mq_ring from the increment of mq_bytes_read
+	 * which follows.  Pairs with the full barrier in shm_mq_send_bytes(). We
+	 * only need a read barrier here because the increment of mq_bytes_read is
+	 * actually a read followed by a dependent write.
+	 */

("  Pairs ..." vs. ". We only ...")

Best regards,

Tels