Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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