| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2018-01-26 18:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm4w57mV7S5goimBiag+pCYsTeeKcBFUDmp=hC7kwnRMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-26 18:32:46 | Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-26 18:01:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |