| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |
| Date: | 2018-03-07 21:28:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa0y20_49a+7b_CMoZv79Xz-sVjuC=Dht0mXf9Y+UfvsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've now broken it into two patches.
>
> Rebased.
+SerializableXactHandle
+ShareSerializableXact(void)
+{
+ Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
+
+ return MySerializableXact;
+}
Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule that you can't create a
ParallelContext in a worker. Parallel query currently doesn't, so it
probably won't happen, but burying an assertion to that effect in the
predicate locking code doesn't seem nice.
Is "sxact" really the best (i.e. clearest) name we can come up with
for the lock tranche?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-07 21:48:13 | Re: public schema default ACL |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2018-03-07 21:16:21 | Re: csv format for psql |