On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have created three patches (a) move InstrStartParallelQuery from its
>> original location so that we perform it just before ExecutorRun (b)
>> patch to fix the gather stats by calling shutdown at appropriate place
>> and allow stats collection in ExecShutdownNode (c) Probit calling
>> ExecShutdownNode if there is a possibility of backward scans (I have
>> done some basic tests with this patch, if we decide to proceed with
>> it, then some more verification and testing would be required).
>>
>> I think we should commit first two patches as that fixes the problem
>> being discussed in this thread and then do some additional
>> verification for the third patch (mentioned in option c). I can
>> understand if people want to commit the third patch before the second
>> patch, so let me know what you guys think.
>
> I'm happy with the first two patches.
>
Thanks. I have pushed those two patches.
> In the third one, I don't think
> "See ExecLimit" is a good thing to put a comment like this, because
> it's too hard to find the comment to which it refers, and because
> future commits are likely to edit or remove that comment without
> noticing the references to it from elsewhere. Instead I would just
> write, in all three places, /* If we know we won't need to back up, we
> can release resources at this point. */ or something like that.
>
Okay, I have changed the comment as per your suggestion in the
attached patch. I will do some more testing/verification of this
patch and will commit over the weekend or on Monday if everything is
fine.
I have noticed that part of the comment atop ExecShutdownNode is now
redundant. See attached edit_comments_shutdown_node_v1, let me know
if you think otherwise.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com