On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Okay, I have adjusted the patch accordingly. I have also added a
>>>> regression test which should produce the same result across different
>>>> runs, see if that looks okay to you, then it is better to add such a
>>>> test as well.
>>>
>>> The regression test added by patch needs cleanup at the end which I
>>> have added in the attached patch.
>>
>> Hmm. If we're going this way, then shouldn't we revert the changes
>> commit 2c09a5c12a66087218c7f8cba269cd3de51b9b82 made to
>> ExecParallelRetrieveInstrumentation?
>>
>
> Yeah, it is better to revert it as ideally that is not required after
> this patch and that is what I have tried to convey above ("Ideally, it
> would have obviated the need for my previous patch which
> got committed as 778e78ae." (The commit id is for branch 10,
> otherwise, it is same as what you mention.)). I have locally reverted
> that patch and then rebased it on top of that.
Uh, should I just revert that commit entirely first, and then we can
commit the new fix afterward?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
