Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment
Date: 2018-10-02 03:52:30
Message-ID: 12777.1538452350@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Also, I believe
>> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
>> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
>> value multiple times. As against that, there's a hazard that the number
>> of workers might not be stable ...

> Yeah, I was actually more worried about instability part, but now I
> have tested it on both windows and centos machine and the test passes,
> so I am okay with that. However, I feel if we want to go with that,
> there is actually no need of statement "SET force_parallel_mode=1".

OK, I hadn't tested to see if that could be dropped, but if it can,
then we don't need it. The EXPLAIN is enough to ensure that the
test is doing what we want. (I think we could drop the savepoint
too, no?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-10-02 03:53:49 Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2018-10-02 03:42:59 Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment