| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Date: | 2015-04-02 07:07:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K+N1wva2UdvfSXaLqRBNMUrMUEsMNW2A7cwo5dyETg3Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >> Also, the new code to propagate
> >> XactLastRecEnd won't work right, either.
> >
> > As we are generating FATAL error on termination of worker
> > (bgworker_die()), so won't it be handled in AbortTransaction path
> > by below code in parallel-mode patch?
>
> That will asynchronously flush the WAL, but if the master goes on to
> commit, we've wait synchronously for WAL flush, and possibly sync rep.
>
Okay, so you mean if master backend later commits, then there is
a chance of loss of WAL data written by worker.
Can't we report the location to master as the patch does in case of
Commit in worker?
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-04-02 07:37:29 | Re: PL/pgSQL, RAISE and error context |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-02 06:56:59 | Re: Logical decoding (contrib/test_decoding) walsender broken in 9.5 master? |