On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Isn't it better to call it as Parallel Aggregate instead of Partial > Aggregate. Initialy, we have kept Partial for seqscan, but later on we > changed to Parallel Seq Scan, so I am not able to think why it is better to > call Partial incase of Aggregates.
I think partial is the right terminology. Unlike a parallel sequential scan, a partial aggregate isn't parallel-aware and could be used in contexts having nothing to do with parallelism. It's just that it outputs transition values instead of a finalized value. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
