> On Jul 28, 2018, at 2:14 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Jonathan S. Katz > <jonathan.k...@excoventures.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jul 27, 2018, at 8:31 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yeah, that would be better. Today, I have tried the patch on both >>> Head and PG11 and I am getting same and correct results. >> >> I have applied the the patch to PG11beta2 and tested. >> > > I think we should backpatch this till 9.6 where the parallel query was > introduced. Note, that for HEAD and 11, the patch is same. For PG10, > the patch code is same, but because surrounding code is different, the > same patch didn't apply. For 9.6, we don't need to collect stats in > ExecShutdownNode. I have tested it in all the back branches and it > works fine.
The logic on backpatching seems sounds. I confirmed my tests of the respective patches against 9.6.9 and 10.4. I'll defer to someone else for comments on the code, but from my read it appears to be a consistent approach for each version. Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
