From: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Determine parallel-safety of partition relations for Inserts |
Date: | 2021-02-02 00:04:11 |
Message-ID: | CALNJ-vSW=Row=sT0+Nh0hw+BQQP3FKSdqR1PXcKpNzDX_G3jAQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
For v3_0003-reloption-parallel_dml-src.patch :
+ * Check if parallel_dml_enabled is enabled for the target table,
+ * if not, skip the safety checks and return PARALLEL_UNSAFE.
Looks like the return value is true / false. So the above comment should be
adjusted.
+ if (!RelationGetParallelDML(rel, true))
+ {
+ table_close(rel, NoLock);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+ table_close(rel, NoLock);
Since the rel would always be closed, it seems the return value
from RelationGetParallelDML() can be assigned to a variable, followed by
call to table_close(), then the return statement.
Cheers
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 3:56 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:02 PM Hou, Zhijie <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Attatching v2 patch which addressed the comments above.
> >
> > Some further refactor:
> >
> > Introducing a new function is_parallel_possible_for_modify() which
> decide whether to do safety check.
> >
> > IMO, It seems more readable to extract all the check that we can do
> before the safety-check and put them
> > in the new function.
> >
> > Please consider it for further review.
> >
>
> I've updated your v2 patches and altered some comments and
> documentation changes (but made no code changes) - please compare
> against your v2 patches, and see whether you agree with the changes to
> the wording.
> In the documentation, you will also notice that in your V2 patch, it
> says that the "parallel_dml_enabled" table option defaults to false.
> As it actually defaults to true, I changed that in the documentation
> too.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Nancarrow
> Fujitsu Australia
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-02-02 00:16:47 | Re: Proposal: Save user's original authenticated identity for logging |
Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-02-01 23:55:40 | Re: Determine parallel-safety of partition relations for Inserts |