Re: asynchronous execution

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Ostensibly, the advantage of this framework over my previous proposal
> is that it avoids inserting anything into ExecProcNode(), which is
> probably a good thing to avoid given how frequently ExecProcNode() is
> called. Unless the parent and the child both know about asynchronous
> execution and choose to use it, everything runs exactly as it does
> today and so there is no possibility of a complaint about a
> performance hit. As far as it goes, that is good.

> However, at a deeper level, I fear we haven't really solved the
> problem. If an Append is directly on top of a ForeignScan node, then
> this will work. But if an Append is indirectly on top of a
> ForeignScan node with some other stuff in the middle, then it won't -
> unless we make whichever nodes appear between the Append and the
> ForeignScan async-capable.

I have not been paying any attention to this thread whatsoever,
but I wonder if you can address your problem by building on top of
the ExecProcNode replacement that Andres is working on,
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170726012641.bmhfcp5ajpudihl6@alap3.anarazel.de

The scheme he has allows $extra_stuff to be injected into ExecProcNode at
no cost when $extra_stuff is not needed, because you simply don't insert
the wrapper function when it's not needed. I'm not sure that it will
scale well to several different kinds of insertions though, for instance
if you wanted both instrumentation and async support on the same node.
But maybe those two couldn't be arms-length from each other anyway,
in which case it might be fine as-is.

regards, tom lane