| 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 20:20:14 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZXwaggwYwm-8hhY44JrrAwxqTd4w9qtbRNUoeW4WO+bA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:16 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I don't think so. If only one process does the splitting, the
> exclusively locked section is just popping off a bunch of offsets of the
> ring. And that could fairly easily be done with atomic ops (since what
> we need is basically a single producer multiple consumer queue, which
> can be done lock free fairly easily ). Whereas in the case of each
> process doing the splitting, the exclusively locked part is splitting
> along lines - which takes considerably longer than just popping off a
> few offsets.
Hmm, that does seem believable.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-04-13 20:20:38 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-13 20:18:46 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |