| From: | Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Imseih (AWS), Sami" <simseih(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow parallel plan for referential integrity checks? |
| Date: | 2022-12-12 16:35:41 |
| Message-ID: | 67ef5e58-cf2e-e5dc-be5c-1723d9ae65f5@dalibo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/11/22 06:29, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> 2022年7月26日(火) 20:58 Frédéric Yhuel <frederic(dot)yhuel(at)dalibo(dot)com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/22 14:25, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/22 01:57, Imseih (AWS), Sami wrote:
>>>> I looked at your patch and it's a good idea to make foreign key
>>>> validation
>>>> use parallel query on large relations.
>>>>
>>>> It would be valuable to add logging to ensure that the ActiveSnapshot
>>>> and TransactionSnapshot
>>>> is the same for the leader and the workers. This logging could be
>>>> tested in the TAP test.
>>>>
>>>> Also, inside RI_Initial_Check you may want to set max_parallel_workers to
>>>> max_parallel_maintenance_workers.
>>>>
>>>> Currently the work_mem is set to maintenance_work_mem. This will also
>>>> require
>>>> a doc change to call out.
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Temporarily increase work_mem so that the check query can be
>>>> executed
>>>> * more efficiently. It seems okay to do this because the query
>>>> is simple
>>>> * enough to not use a multiple of work_mem, and one typically
>>>> would not
>>>> * have many large foreign-key validations happening
>>>> concurrently. So
>>>> * this seems to meet the criteria for being considered a
>>>> "maintenance"
>>>> * operation, and accordingly we use maintenance_work_mem.
>>>> However, we
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Sami,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review!
>>>
>>> I will try to do as you say, but it will take time, since my daily job
>>> as database consultant takes most of my time and energy.
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As suggested by Jacob, here is a quick message to say that I didn't find
>> enough time to work further on this patch, but I didn't completely
>> forget it either. I moved it to the next commitfest. Hopefully I will
>> find enough time and motivation in the coming months :-)
>
> Hi Frédéric
>
> This patch has been carried forward for a couple more commitfests since
> your message; do you think you'll be able to work on it further during this
> release cycle?
>
Hi Ian,
I've planned to work on it full time on week 10 (6-10 March), if you
agree to bear with me. The idea would be to bootstrap my brain on it,
and then continue to work on it from time to time.
Best regards,
Frédéric
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-12-12 17:18:22 | Re: add \dpS to psql |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-12-12 16:15:43 | Re: Add sub-transaction overflow status in pg_stat_activity |