| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Date: | 2021-04-05 23:32:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoC-W-1pp6jsRq0jLtVAHoq9=0H5k6mGztMQYWqPfy9LoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 8:29 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> > Do you think that it's okay that we rely on the propagation of global
> > state to parallel workers on Postgres 13? Don't we need something like
> > my fixup commit 49f49def on Postgres 13 as well? At least for the
> > EXEC_BACKEND case, I think.
>
> Uh ... *what* propagation of global state to parallel workers? Workers
> fork off from the postmaster, not from their leader process.
Right. I think we should apply that fix on PG13 as well.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-04-05 23:34:25 | Re: postgres_fdw: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA ... LIMIT TO (partition) |
| Previous Message | osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com | 2021-04-05 23:31:51 | RE: Stronger safeguard for archive recovery not to miss data |