| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: asynchronous execution |
| Date: | 2016-10-05 17:16:11 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZSWnhy=SB3ggQcB6EqKxzbNeNn=EfwARnCS5tyhhBNcw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Also, parent pointers are not required in the new design. Thinking of
> parent pointers, now it seems the event won't get bubbled up the tree
> with the new design. But still, , I think it's possible to switch over
> to the other asynchronous tree when some node in the current subtree
> is waiting. But I am not sure, will think more on that.
The bubbling-up still happens, because each node that made an async
request gets a callback with the final response - and if it is itself
the recipient of an async request, it can use that callback to respond
to that request in turn. This version doesn't bubble up through
non-async-aware nodes, but that might be a good thing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-05 17:22:13 | Re: Cardinality estimation for group by |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-05 17:10:42 | Re: Incorrect comment/doc for poll_query_until |