| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Date: | 2020-02-16 21:12:25 |
| Message-ID: | 13445.1581887545@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-02-14 13:34:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the group locking + deadlock detection things are more
>> fundamental than you might be crediting, but I agree that having
>> parallel mechanisms has its own set of pitfalls.
> It's possible. But I'm also hesitant to believe that we'll not need
> other lock types that conflict between leader/worker, but that still
> need deadlock detection. The more work we want to parallelize, the more
> likely that imo will become.
Yeah. The concept that leader and workers can't conflict seems to me
to be dependent, in a very fundamental way, on the assumption that
we only need to parallelize read-only workloads. I don't think that's
going to have a long half-life.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-02-16 21:27:13 | Re: jsonb_object() seems to be buggy. jsonb_build_object() is good. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-16 21:05:31 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |