| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs. force_parallel_mode on ppc |
| Date: | 2016-03-04 16:14:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20160304161418.GA701103@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's actually true with parallel mode. I'm pretty
> sure the earlier workers will have terminated before the later ones
> start, but is that enough to guarantee that the stats collector sees
> the messages in that order?
Um. So if you have two queries that run in sequence, it's possible
for workers of the first query to be still running when workers for the
second query finish? That would be very strange.
If that's not what you're saying, I don't understand what guarantees you
say we don't have.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-04 16:16:16 | Re: Equivalent of --enable-tap-tests in MSVC scripts |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-04 16:14:09 | Re: WIP: Failover Slots |