Re: executor relation handling

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
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?)