|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Subject:||Re: asynchronous execution|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Sorry for delayed response, I'll have enough time from now and
At Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:09:03 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CA+TgmoaXQEt4tZ03FtQhnzeDEMzBck+Lrni0UWHVVgOTnA6C1w(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> Well, I promised to post this, so here it is. It's not really working
> all that well at this point, and it's definitely not doing anything
> that interesting, but you can see the outline of what I have in mind.
> Since Kyotaro Horiguchi found that my previous design had a
> system-wide performance impact due to the ExecProcNode changes, I
> decided to take a different approach here: I created an async
> infrastructure where both the requestor and the requestee have to be
> specifically modified to support parallelism, and then modified Append
> and ForeignScan to cooperate using the new interface. Hopefully that
> means that anything other than those two nodes will suffer no
> performance impact. Of course, it might have other problems....
> Some notes:
> - EvalPlanQual rechecks are broken.
> - EXPLAIN ANALYZE instrumentation is broken.
> - ExecReScanAppend is broken, because the async stuff needs some way
> of canceling an async request and I didn't invent anything like that
> - The postgres_fdw changes pretend to be async but aren't actually.
> It's just a demo of (part of) the interface at this point.
> - The postgres_fdw changes also report all pg-fdw paths as
> async-capable, but actually the direct-modify ones aren't, so the
> regression tests fail.
> - Errors in the executor can leak the WaitEventSet. Probably we need
> to modify ResourceOwners to be able to own WaitEventSets.
> - There are probably other bugs, too.
> Note that I've tried to solve the re-entrancy problems by (1) putting
> all of the event loop's state inside the EState rather than in local
> variables and (2) having the function that is called to report arrival
> of a result be thoroughly different than the function that is used to
> return a tuple to a synchronous caller.
> Comments welcome, if you're feeling brave enough to look at anything
> this half-baked.
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Haribabu Kommi||2016-09-29 05:45:35||Re: New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql)|
|Previous Message||David Fetter||2016-09-29 05:19:02||Re: PoC: Make it possible to disallow WHERE-less UPDATE and DELETE|