| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bert <biertie(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-11-19 15:59:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa0m+iiOv4Z82E9sYq-rGgGWs=mL4gri5vs299fB9+EOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think whats going on here is that when any of the session doesn't
> get any workers, we shutdown the Gather node which internally destroys
> the dynamic shared memory segment as well. However the same is
> needed as per current design for doing scan by master backend as
> well. So I think the fix would be to just do shutdown of workers which
> actually won't do anything in this scenario.
It seems silly to call ExecGatherShutdownWorkers() here when that's
going to be a no-op. I think we should just remove that line and the
if statement before it altogether and replace it with a comment
explaining why we can't nuke the DSM at this stage.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-19 16:02:59 | Re: SPI and transactions |
| Previous Message | Big Mike | 2015-11-19 15:58:35 | Re: Foreign Data Wrapper |