From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc |
Date: | 2016-03-04 16:17:41 |
Message-ID: | 7505.1457108261@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, that would make the function more complicated, but maybe it's a
>> better answer. On the other hand, we know that the stats updates are
>> delivered in a deterministic order, so why not simply replace the
>> existing test in the wait function with one that looks for the truncation
>> updates? If we've gotten those, we must have gotten the earlier ones.
> I'm not sure if that's actually true with parallel mode. I'm pretty
> sure the earlier workers will have terminated before the later ones
> start, but is that enough to guarantee that the stats collector sees
> the messages in that order?
Huh? Parallel workers are read-only; what would they be doing sending
any of these messages?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-04 16:22:43 | Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-04 16:16:16 | Re: Equivalent of --enable-tap-tests in MSVC scripts |