| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE | 
| Date: | 2017-06-02 13:08:50 | 
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ5Z7gzOSK+mEe7jMGKBtbdH5XWc5xPampAYWRi7dmSqg@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Your reasoning sounds sensible to me.  I think the other way to attack
> this problem is that we can maintain some local queue in each of the
> workers when the shared memory queue becomes full.  Basically, we can
> extend your "Faster processing at Gather node" patch [1] such that
> instead of fixed sized local queue, we can extend it when the shm
> queue become full.  I think that way we can handle both the problems
> (worker won't stall if shm queues are full and workers can do batched
> writes in shm queue to avoid the shm queue communication overhead) in
> a similar way.
We still have to bound the amount of memory that we use for queueing
data in some way.
-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-02 13:15:20 | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE | 
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-06-02 13:01:42 | Re: Effect of changing the value for PARALLEL_TUPLE_QUEUE_SIZE |