From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash |
Date: | 2017-01-11 20:05:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYZE9C1mn+Q3X5NZ5kJ3aDfWX3QxkoDyvPHrmoFOK0d=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> You'd probably still want to throw an error when workers ended up not
> deleting BufFile segments they owned, though, at least for parallel
> tuplesort.
Don't see why.
> This idea is something that's much more limited than the
> SharedTemporaryFile() API that you sketched on the parallel sort
> thread, because it only concerns resource management, and not how to
> make access to the shared file concurrency safe in any special,
> standard way.
Actually, I only intended that sketch to be about resource management.
Sounds like I didn't explain very well.
> Instead, they should be passing around some kind of minimal
> private-to-buffile state in shared memory that coordinates backends
> participating in BufFile unification. Private state created by
> buffile.c, and passed back to buffile.c. Everything should be
> encapsulated within buffile.c, IMV, making parallel implementations as
> close as possible to their serial implementations.
That seems reasonable although I haven't studied the details carefully as yet.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-11 20:06:26 | Re: New SQL counter statistics view (pg_stat_sql) |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-11 20:01:30 | Re: Packages: Again |