Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts

On 22 December 2014 at 19:14, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Here is another new version, with lots of bugs fixed.

An initial blind review, independent of other comments already made on thread.

OK src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
heapam.c prohibitions on update and delete look fine

OK src/backend/access/transam/Makefile

OK src/backend/access/transam/README.parallel
README.parallel and all concepts look good

PARTIAL src/backend/access/transam/parallel.c
wait_patiently mentioned in comment but doesn’t exist
Why not make nworkers into a uint?
Trampoline? Really? I think we should define what we mean by that,
somewhere, rather than just use the term as if it was self-evident.
Entrypints?
..

OK src/backend/access/transam/varsup.c

QUESTIONS src/backend/access/transam/xact.c
These comments don’t have any explanation or justification

+ * This stores XID of the toplevel transaction to which we belong.
+ * Normally, it's the same as TopTransactionState.transactionId, but in
+ * a parallel worker it may not be.

+ * If we're a parallel worker, there may be additional XIDs that we need
+ * to regard as part of our transaction even though they don't appear
+ * in the transaction state stack.

This comment is copied-and-pasted too many times for safety and elegance
+ /*
+ * Workers synchronize transaction state at the beginning of
each parallel
+ * operation, so we can't account for transaction state change
after that
+ * point. (Note that this check will certainly error out if
s->blockState
+ * is TBLOCK_PARALLEL_INPROGRESS, so we can treat that as an
invalid case
+ * below.)
+ */
We need a single Check() that contains more detail and comments within

Major comments

* Parallel stuff at start sounded OK
* Transaction stuff strikes me as overcomplicated and error prone.
Given there is no explanation or justification for most of it, I’d be
inclined to question why its there
* If we have a trampoline for DSM, why don’t we use a trampoline for
snapshots, then you wouldn’t need to do all this serialize stuff

This is very impressive, but it looks like we’re trying to lift too
much weight on the first lift. If we want to go anywhere near this, we
need to have very clear documentation about how and why its like that.
I’m actually very sorry to say that because the review started very
well, much much better than most.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services