| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alastair Turner <minion(at)decodable(dot)me>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel copy |
| Date: | 2020-04-13 18:13:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYbo-cW=r6KExQdg7a4PGmkG7=km-4+7dd9fdwteDsx=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:26 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Still, it might be the case that having the process that is reading
> > the data also find the line endings is so fast that it makes no sense
> > to split those two tasks. After all, whoever just read the data must
> > have it in cache, and that helps a lot.
>
> Yea. And if it's not fast enough to split lines, then we have a problem
> regardless of which process does the splitting.
Still, if the reader does the splitting, then you don't need as much
IPC, right? The shared memory data structure is just a ring of bytes,
and whoever reads from it is responsible for the rest.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-13 18:27:03 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-13 18:13:40 | Re: Properly mark NULL returns in numeric aggregates |