From: | Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: strange parallel query behavior after OOM crashes |
Date: | 2017-04-04 06:46:18 |
Message-ID: | CAFO0U+-E8yzchwVnvn5BeRDPgX2z9vZUxQ8dxx9c0XFGBC7N1Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Looking further in this context, number of active parallel workers is:
parallel_register_count - parallel_terminate_count
Can active workers ever be greater than max_parallel_workers, I think no.
Then why should there be greater than check in the following condition:
if (parallel && (BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_count -
BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count) >= max_parallel_workers)
I feel there should be an assert if
(BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_register_count
- BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count) > max_parallel_workers)
And the check could be
if (parallel && (active_parallel_workers == max_parallel_workers))
then do not register new parallel wokers and return.
There should be no tolerance for the case when active_parallel_workers >
max_parallel_workers. After all that is the purpose of max_parallel_workers.
Is it like multiple backends trying to register parallel workers at the
same time, for which the greater than check should be present?
Thoughts?
Regards,
Neha
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 'Andres Freund' | 2017-04-04 06:48:20 | Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2017-04-04 06:35:00 | Re: Statement timeout behavior in extended queries |