From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts |
Date: | 2015-01-05 17:01:07 |
Message-ID: | 32660.1420477267@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> * I wonder if parallel contexts shouldn't be tracked via resowners
> That is a good question. I confess that I'm somewhat fuzzy about
> which things should be tracked via the resowner mechanism vs. which
> things should have their own bespoke bookkeeping. However, the
> AtEOXact_Parallel() stuff happens well before ResourceOwnerRelease(),
> which makes merging them seem not particularly clean.
FWIW, the resowner mechanism was never meant as a substitute for bespoke
bookkeeping. What it is is a helper mechanism to reduce the need for
PG_TRY blocks that guarantee that a resource-releasing function will be
called even in error paths. I'm not sure whether that analogy applies
well in parallel-execution cases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-01-05 17:06:03 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-05 16:55:57 | Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD |