From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 and vectorized execution |
Date: | 2016-09-23 13:29:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaF2yR0uQNFBahbo19spJ=40ee7qQWb4voo3mpx_-A8yA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For e.g., in the above plan which you specified, suppose :
> 1. Hash Join has called ExecProcNode() for the child foreign scan b, and so
> is
> waiting in ExecAsyncWaitForNode(foreign_scan_on_b).
> 2. The event wait list already has foreign scan on a that is on a different
> subtree.
> 3. This foreign scan a happens to be ready, so in
> ExecAsyncWaitForNode (), ExecDispatchNode(foreign_scan_a) is called,
> which returns with result_ready.
> 4. Since it returns result_ready, it's parent node is now inserted in the
> callbacks array, and so it's parent (Append) is executed.
> 5. But, this Append planstate is already in the middle of executing Hash
> join, and is waiting for HashJoin.
Ah, yeah, something like that could happen. I've spent much of this
week working on a new design for this feature which I think will avoid
this problem. It doesn't work yet - in fact I can't even really test
it yet. But I'll post what I've got by the end of the day today so
that anyone who is interested can look at it and critique.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-23 13:44:41 | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-09-23 13:20:29 | Phrase search distance syntax |