| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |
| Date: | 2022-03-22 22:41:45 |
| Message-ID: | 2611318.1647988905@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mar 22, 2022, at 3:20 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> Seems like it might actually be good to test that object access hooks work
>> well in a parallel worker. How about going the other way and explicitly setting
>> force_parallel_mode = disabled for parts of the test and to enabled for
>> others?
> Wouldn't we get differing numbers of NOTICE messages depending on how
> many parallel workers there are? Or would you propose setting the
> number of workers to a small, fixed value?
The value would have to be "1", else you are going to have issues
with notices from different workers being interleaved differently
from run to run. You might have that anyway, due to interleaving
of leader and worker messages.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-03-22 22:44:12 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2022-03-22 22:39:13 | Re: Window Function "Run Conditions" |