Re: Parallel worker error

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel worker error
Date: 2017-10-29 06:32:02
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LC0tE4_5Ro7NkAgDsAN8xUP-2LQLP_7PrqkHoB4RmBow@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:17 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> You are right. I have changed the ordering and passed OuterUserId via
>>> FixedParallelState.
>>
>> This looks a little strange:
>>
>> + SetCurrentRoleId(fps->outer_user_id, fps->is_current_user_superuser);
>>
>> The first argument says "outer" but the second says "current". I'm
>> wondering if we can just make the second one is_superuser.
>>
>
> No issues changed as per suggestion.
>
>> I'm also wondering if, rather than using GetConfigOptionByName, we
>> should just make the GUC underlying is_superuser non-static and use
>> the value directly. If not, then I'm alternatively wondering whether
>> we should maybe use a less-generic name than varval.
>>
>
> I think we can go either way. So prepared patches with both
> approaches. In fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_v3_1.patch, I have
> changed the variable name and in
> fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_v3_2.patch, I have exposed the guc)
> is_superuser.
>

This patch no longer applies, so attached rebased patches. I have
also created patches for v10 as we might want to backpatch the fix.
Added the patch in CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/15/1342/)

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_v4_1.patch application/octet-stream 5.7 KB
fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_v4_2.patch application/octet-stream 6.1 KB
fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_10_v4_1.patch application/octet-stream 5.5 KB
fix_role_handling_parallel_worker_10_v4_2.patch application/octet-stream 6.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-10-29 07:08:28 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-10-28 23:11:34 Re: taking stdbool.h into use