| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Asynchronous execution on FDW |
| Date: | 2015-08-10 15:01:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLpjDQhV_uKz97GqKo2EGMGcGMB8+YT=0nqzVhhP8viA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I've marked this as rejected in the commitfest, because others are
> working on a more general solution with parallel workers. That's still
> work-in-progress, and it's not certain if it's going to make it into
> 9.6, but if it does it will largely render this obsolete. We can revisit
> this patch later in the release cycle, if the parallel scan patch hasn't
> solved the same use case by then.
I think the really important issue for this patch is the one discussed here:
You raised an important issue there but never really expressed an
opinion on the points I raised, here or on the other thread. And
neither did anyone else except the patch author who, perhaps
unsurprisingly, thinks it's OK. I wish we could get more discussion
about that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-10 15:02:36 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Syed, Rahila | 2015-08-10 14:59:45 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |