| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: es_query_dsa is broken |
| Date: | 2018-04-11 20:56:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=3b-qz4L9HyE3ZK1cKkoLO7pGvQ15Pq9RkK5YCXRU9HzQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> This is an open item for v11:
>
> Tidy up es_query_dsa and possibly ParallelWorkerContext?
> Original commit: e13029a5ce353574516c64fd1ec9c50201e705fd (principal author: Thomas Munro; owner: Robert Haas)
> Bug fix: fd7c0fa732d97a4b4ebb58730e6244ea30d0a618
> While the bug was fixed with something back-patchable, we should considering improving this situation. As discussed in the above-linked thread, options might include (1) getting rid of es_query_dsa entirely and injecting dependencies into nodes, (2) making all Gather nodes share the same DSM segment so there truly could be per-query DSA segment.
>
> Do we want to make any changes here for v11? If not, are we ok with just
> closing the entry and waiting till it bugs anybody for some reason?
I think we should probably do both of the things listed above, but
given where we are and given that it's refactoring work and not a
stop-ship issue, I propose to do that in the v12 cycle. I'll go
remove that from the open items if no one objects soon.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2018-04-11 20:58:00 | Re: Partitioned tables and covering indexes |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-04-11 20:54:02 | Re: Native partitioning tablespace inheritance |