| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
| Date: | 2017-03-22 00:44:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk8S-xp96axQMbrNmvtiXeeSA948XQE4bYH2xvaZeGQXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm going to experiment with refactoring the v10 parallel CREATE INDEX
> patch to use the SharedBufFileSet interface from
> hj-shared-buf-file-v8.patch today and see what problems I run into.
I would be happy if you took over parallel CREATE INDEX completely. It
makes a certain amount of sense, and not just because I am no longer
able to work on it.
You're the one doing things with shared BufFiles that are of
significant complexity. Certainly more complicated than what parallel
CREATE INDEX needs in every way, and necessarily so. I will still have
some more feedback on your shared BufFile design, though, while it's
fresh in my mind.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Venkata B Nagothi | 2017-03-22 00:45:40 | Re: patch proposal |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-03-22 00:18:24 | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |