Re: modeling parallel contention (was: Parallel Append implementation)

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: modeling parallel contention (was: Parallel Append implementation)
Date: 2017-05-05 02:48:43
Message-ID: 20170505024843.4467jzffzbzhtani@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-05-04 19:45:33 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Increment phs_cblock without checking rs_nblocks, but outside of the
> lock do a % scan->rs_nblocks, to get the "actual" position. Finish if
> (phs_cblock - phs_startblock) / scan->rs_nblocks >= 1.

Err, as I've been pointed to: It should be s/lock/atomic operation/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-05-05 02:54:05 Re: modeling parallel contention (was: Parallel Append implementation)
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-05-05 02:45:33 Re: modeling parallel contention (was: Parallel Append implementation)