| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: executor relation handling |
| Date: | 2018-10-11 03:06:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZCK450=v4vWsOEutCc0dQnBp5Lx09eSco8L+25ANs3nA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > That last part could *easily* change in a future release. We've
> > already started to allow CTAS with parallel query, and there have
> > already been multiple people wanting to allow more. It would be a
> > shame if we threw up additional obstacles in the way of that...
>
> I hardly think that this is the most serious issue in the way of
> doing non-read-only things in parallel workers.
My concern, as I said, is about adding new obstacles.
> In any case, a parallel worker would surely have to open any
> relations it is going to fire triggers for. If it gets the correct
> lock when it does that, all is well. If not, the Assert in
> relation_open will complain.
Well, in that case, no issues.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-10-11 03:18:40 | Re: DSM segment handle generation in background workers |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-10-11 03:04:33 | Re: background worker shudown (was Re: [HACKERS] Why does logical replication launcher exit with exit code 1?) |