| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: auto_explain vs. parallel query |
| Date: | 2016-11-01 14:29:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYe1U=yx2N700AaHUz+oYZm_qYc0HS-4Rm9EAe-mEvTjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Clearly we need to pass some information to the worker processes, so that
> they know whether to instrument the query or not. I don't know if there's a
> good non-invasive way to do that from an extension - the easiest way I can
> think of is using a bit of shared memory to pass the "sample query" flag -
> attached is a patch that does that, and it seems to be working fine for me.
Uh, isn't this going to break as soon as there are multiple parallel
queries in process at the same time?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-01 14:31:49 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-11-01 14:21:28 | Re: auto_explain vs. parallel query |