Re: Parallel Seq Scan

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date: 2015-10-17 00:45:44
Message-ID: 20151017004544.GA240709@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:30:01PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > plpgsql_param_fetch() assumes that it can detect whether it's being
> > called from copyParamList() by checking whether params !=
> > estate->paramLI. I don't know why this works, but I do know that this
> > test fails to detect the case where it's being called from
> > SerializeParamList(), which causes failures in exec_eval_datum() as
> > predicted. Calls from SerializeParamList() need the same treatment as
> > calls from copyParamList() because it, too, will try to evaluate every
> > parameter in the list.
>
> From what I understood by looking at code in this area, I think the check
> params != estate->paramLI and code under it is required for parameters
> that are setup by setup_unshared_param_list(). Now unshared params
> are only created for Cursors and expressions that are passing a R/W
> object pointer; for cursors we explicitly prohibit the parallel
> plan generation
> and I am not sure if it makes sense to generate parallel plans for
> expressions
> involving R/W object pointer, if we don't generate parallel plan where
> expressions involve such parameters, then SerializeParamList() should not
> be affected by the check mentioned by you.

The trouble comes from the opposite direction. A setup_unshared_param_list()
list is fine under today's code, but a shared param list needs more help. To
say it another way, parallel queries that use the shared estate->paramLI need,
among other help, the logic now guarded by "params != estate->paramLI".

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-10-17 00:58:04 Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-10-16 23:52:18 WIP: lookbehind constraints for our regexp engine