| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2017-11-03 01:24:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20171103012443.GA18797@marmot |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm going to make an item on my personal TODO list for that. No useful
>> insights on that right now, though.
>
>I decided to try that, but it didn't really work: fd.h gets included
>by front-end code, so I can't very well define a struct and declare
>functions that deal in dsm_segment and slock_t. On the other hand it
>does seem a bit better to for these shared file sets to work in terms
>of File, not BufFile.
Realistically, fd.h has a number of functions that are really owned by
buffile.c already. This sounds fine.
> That way you don't have to opt in to BufFile's
>double buffering and segmentation schemes just to get shared file
>clean-up, if for some reason you want direct file handles.
Is that something that you really think is possible?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-11-03 01:39:49 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-11-03 01:20:20 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |