| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: auto_explain vs. parallel query |
| Date: | 2016-11-01 19:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYfFL-J6usNbSafpW6Fy4t-GVBL=+_WBYhfX40tCMvm-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Damn! You're right of course. Who'd guess I need more coffee this early?
>
> Attached is a fix replacing the flag with an array of flags, indexed by
> ParallelMasterBackendId. Hopefully that makes it work with multiple
> concurrent parallel queries ... still, I'm not sure this is the right
> solution.
I feel like it isn't. I feel like this ought to go in the DSM for
that parallel query, not the main shared memory segment, but I'm not
sure how to accomplish that offhand. Also, if we do solve it this
way, surely we don't need the locking. The flag's only set before any
workers have started and never changes thereafter.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2016-11-01 19:48:48 | commitfest 2016-11 status summary |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-11-01 19:28:32 | Re: pageinspect: Hash index support |