Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>>> I had imagined that WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() would give me an
>>> error in the style of WaitForParallelWorkersToFinish(), without
>>> actually waiting for the parallel workers to finish.
>>
>> +1. If we're going to go that route, and that seems to be the
>> consensus, then I think an error is more appropriate than returning an
>> updated worker count.
>
> Great.
>
> Should I wait for Amit's WaitForParallelWorkersToAttach() patch to be
> posted, reviewed, and committed, or would you like to see what I came
> up with ("The next revision of the patch will make the
> leader-participates-as-worker spool/Tuplelsortstate start and finish
> sorting before the main leader spool/Tuplelsortstate is even started")
> today?

I'm busy with other things, so no rush.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company