From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_background (and more parallelism infrastructure patches) |
Date: | 2014-09-09 17:18:49 |
Message-ID: | 540F3679.8090907@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/09/14 18:49, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I am also not sure that I like the pq_redirect_to_shm_mq being directly
>> exposed for use in bgworker, what I would like is to have elog interface to
>> which you tell that you want errors sent to shm_mq handle and that one would
>> then do the necessary calls (It's basically same principle but for the sake
>> of cleanliness/correctness I think it should be elog and not pq from the
>> point of bgworker).
>
> I think that's completely wrong. As the patch series demonstrates,
> it's not limited to propagating ErrorResponse and NoticeResponse. It
> can also propagate NotifyResponse and RowDescription and DataRow and
> anything else that comes along. We are not just propagating errors;
> we are propagating all protocol messages of whatever type. So tying
> it to elog specifically is not right.
>
Oh in that case, I think what Andres proposed is actually quite good. I
know the hook works fine it just seems like using somewhat hackish
solution to save 20 lines of code.
The reason why I am not proposing anything better is that my solution
when I did prototyping in this area was to just check if my pq_dsm_mq
handle is set or not and call the appropriate function from the wrapper
based on that which does not seem like big improvement over the hook
approach... Anything better/more flexible that I could come up with is
basically same idea what Andres already wrote.
>> Please don't forget to add this to next commitfest.
>
> OK, done. But it would be awfully nice if we could actually make some
> progress on hammering out a design everyone can live with here.
> Letting it sit for another 5 weeks is not going to help anything, and
> it will hold up getting any more stuff after this done in time for
> 9.5.
>
Yeah I said that just as formality, I wrote the response now and not in
5 weeks exactly for this reason, I am all for discussing this now and I
think it's important to hammer this infrastructure out sooner rather
than later.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-09 17:52:40 | Re: Spinlocks and compiler/memory barriers |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-09-09 17:05:13 | Re: tracking commit timestamps |