| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Seref Arikan <serefarikan(at)kurumsalteknoloji(dot)com>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: What happens if I create new threads from within a postgresql function? |
| Date: | 2013-02-18 17:08:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20130218170838.GA17326@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:33:26PM +0530, Atri Sharma wrote:
> >> While your threads are executing, your query can't be cancelled --
> >> only a hard kill will take the database down. If you're ok with that
> >> risk, then go for it. If you're not, then I'd thinking about
> >> sendinging the bytea through a protocol to a threaded processing
> >> server running outside of the database. More work and slower
> >> (protocol overhead), but much more robust.
> >
> > You can see the approach of not calling any PG-specific routines from
> > theads here:
> >
> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Parallel_Query_Execution#Approaches
> >
>
>
> Is there any way to locally synchronise the threads in my code,and
> send the requests to the PostgreSQL backend one at a time? Like a waiting
> queue in my code?
Is this from the client code? That is easy from libpq using
asynchronous queries.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-02-18 17:16:39 | Re: What happens if I create new threads from within a postgresql function? |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-02-18 17:03:26 | Re: What happens if I create new threads from within a postgresql function? |