|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com|
|Subject:||Re: [PoC] Asynchronous execution again (which is not parallel)|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2016/01/21 18:26, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>>> Then, suppose we add a function bool ExecStartAsync(PlanState *target,
>>> ExecCallback callback, PlanState *cb_planstate, void *cb_context).
>>> For non-async-aware plan nodes, this just returns false. async-aware
>>> plan nodes should initiate some work, register some callbacks, and
>>> return. The callback that get registered should arrange in turn to
>>> register the callback passed as an argument when a tuple becomes
>>> available, passing the planstate and context provided by
>>> ExecStartAsync's caller, plus the TupleTableSlot containing the tuple.
>> Although I don't imagine clearly about the case of
>> async-aware-nodes under non-aware-nodes, it seems to have a high
>> affinity with (true) parallel execution framework.
> The ExecStartAsync is similar to ExecStartNode of my old
> patch. One of the most annoying things of that is that it needs
> to walk down to their descendents and in turn it needs garbageous
> corresponding additional codes for all type of nodes which can
> have children.
Unless I am missing something, I wonder if this is where
planstate_tree_walker() introduced by commit 8dd401aa is useful. For
example, I see that it's used in ExecShutdownNode() in a manner that looks
interesting for this discussion.
|Next Message||Vitaly Burovoy||2016-01-21 10:51:27||Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes|
|Previous Message||Etsuro Fujita||2016-01-21 09:55:01||Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)|