Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution
Date: 2016-08-30 03:17:52
Message-ID: 20160830.121752.100817694.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

No, it was wrong.

At Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:08:36 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20160829(dot)170836(dot)161449399(dot)horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> Hello,
>
> I considered applying the async infrastructure onto nodeGather,
> but since parallel workers hardly make Gather (or the leader)
> wait, it's really useless at least for simple cases. Furthermore,
> as several people may have said before, being defferent from
> foreign scans, gather (or other kinds of parallel) nodes usually
> have several workers and will have up to two digit nubmers at the
> most even on so-called many-core boxes. I finally gave up
> applying this to nodeGather.

I overlooked that local scan takes place instead of waiting
workers to be ready. I will reconsider counting that..

> As the result, the attached patchset is functionally the same
> with the last version but replace misused Assert with
> AssertMacro.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-08-30 04:17:19 Re: [PATCH] Send numeric version to clients
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-08-30 02:31:40 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.