| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2016-12-04 01:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQ0EgCxs2NoEUwB6BACi-pp5qVmp432i+Wh_XyUrg1FbQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> What do we need to teach pg_restore about parallel CREATE INDEX, if
> anything at all? Could this be as simple as a blanket disabling of
> parallelism for CREATE INDEX from pg_restore? Or, does it need to be
> more sophisticated than that? I suppose that tools like reindexdb and
> pgbench must be considered in a similar way.
I still haven't resolved this question, which seems like the most
important outstanding question, but I attach V6. Changes:
* tuplesort.c was adapted to use the recently committed condition
variables stuff. This made things cleaner. No more ad-hoc WaitLatch()
looping.
* Adapted docs to mention the newly committed max_parallel_workers GUC
in the context of discussing proposed max_parallel_workers_maintenance
GUC.
* Fixed trivial assertion failure bug that could be tripped when a
conventional sort uses very little memory.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0002-Add-temporary-testing-tools.patch.gz | application/x-gzip | 4.7 KB |
| 0001-Add-parallel-B-tree-index-build-sorting.patch.gz | application/x-gzip | 56.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-12-04 01:45:44 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-12-04 01:16:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use latch instead of select() in walreceiver |