On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada > > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special > > > > about this. In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for > > > > each worker but I guess it doesn't matter too much. I am not sure if > > > > it is worth adding a comment for this, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you. If the differences were considerably large probably > > > we would do something but I think we don't need to anything at this > > > time. > > > > > > > Fair enough, can you once check this in back-branches as this needs to > > be backpatched? I will do that once by myself as well. > > I've done the same test with HEAD of both REL_12_STABLE and > REL_11_STABLE. I think the patch needs to be backpatched to PG11 where > parallel index creation was introduced. I've attached the patches > for PG12 and PG11 I used for this test for reference. >
Thanks, I will once again verify and push this tomorrow if there are no other comments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
