| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Graeme B(dot) Bell" <grb(at)skogoglandskap(dot)no> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |
| Date: | 2014-09-30 16:32:37 |
| Message-ID: | 10321.1412094757@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
"Graeme B. Bell" <grb(at)skogoglandskap(dot)no> writes:
> Every year or two the core count goes up. Can/should/does postgres ever attempt two strategies in parallel, in cases where strategy A is generally good but strategy B prevents bad worst case behaviour? Kind of like a Schrdinger's Cat approach to scheduling. What problems would it raise?
You can't run two plans and have them both returning rows to the client,
or performing inserts/updates/deletes as the case may be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-09-30 16:54:44 | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-09-30 16:23:54 | Re: Last Commitfest patches waiting review |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-09-30 16:54:44 | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-09-30 15:59:34 | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |