From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Date: | 2018-01-21 04:38:42 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K0kQcZrRP-B_+wO2OmOpD_h714u0sj-NiCaqDtmtjwyA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Actually, though it doesn't really look like it from the way things
> are structured within nbtsort.c, I don't need to wait for workers to
> start up (call the WaitForParallelWorkerToAttach() function you
> sketched) before doing any real work within the leader. The leader can
> participate as a worker, and only do this check afterwards. That will
> work because the leader Tuplesortstate has yet to do any real work.
> Nothing stops me from adding a new function to tuplesort, for the
> leader, that lets the leader say: "New plan -- you should now expect
> this many participants" (leader takes this reliable number from
> eventual call to WaitForParallelWorkerToAttach()).
>
> I admit that I had no idea that there is this issue with
> nworkers_launched until very recently. But then, that field has
> absolutely no comments.
>
It would have been better if there were some comments besides that
field, but I think it has been covered at another place in the code.
See comments in LaunchParallelWorkers().
/*
* Start workers.
*
* The caller must be able to tolerate ending up with fewer workers than
* expected, so there is no need to throw an error here if registration
* fails. It wouldn't help much anyway, because registering the worker in
* no way guarantees that it will start up and initialize successfully.
*/
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-01-21 06:16:38 | Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: pg_(total_)relation_size and partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-01-20 23:16:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock in XLogInsert at AIX |