| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 23:53:58 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=eTZT7bBtr47OXoEbf7DBabBDRQ2ZFxx=nkE1QSyUA1Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:29 PM 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.
>
> (I note that morepork is still failing. The other ones didn't report
> in yet.)
Evidently my fixup commit 49f49def was written in way too much of a
panic. I'm going to push a new fix shortly. This will make workers do
their own GetAccessStrategy(BAS_VACUUM), just to get the buildfarm
green.
REL_13_STABLE will need to be considered separately. I still haven't
figured out how this ever appeared to work for this long. The
vac_strategy/bstrategy state simply wasn't propagated at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-04-06 00:00:31 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-04-05 23:34:25 | Re: postgres_fdw: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA ... LIMIT TO (partition) |