From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |
Date: | 2018-03-30 05:56:08 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=2Qm=iSo=KjVQj5yFU+zy268u-UgSPMRvzNk7TnORyu7A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +SerializableXactHandle
> +ShareSerializableXact(void)
> +{
> + Assert(!IsParallelWorker());
> +
> + return MySerializableXact;
> +}
>
> Uh, how's that OK? There's no rule that you can't create a
> ParallelContext in a worker. Parallel query currently doesn't, so it
> probably won't happen, but burying an assertion to that effect in the
> predicate locking code doesn't seem nice.
Hmm. I suppose you could have a PARALLEL SAFE function that itself
launches parallel workers explicitly (not via parallel query), and
they should inherit the same SERIALIZABLEXACT from their parent and
that should all just work.
> Is "sxact" really the best (i.e. clearest) name we can come up with
> for the lock tranche?
Yeah, needs a better name.
I have some lingering uncertainty about this patch and we're out of
time, so I moved it to PG12 CF1. Thanks Haribabu, Robert, Amit for
the reviews and comments so far.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-03-30 06:26:26 | Re: pgbench doc typos |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-03-30 05:38:44 | Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning |