Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution

From: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution
Date: 2016-08-01 05:14:56
Message-ID: CAJ3gD9ek4Y4SGTSuc_pzkGYwLMbrc9QOM7m1D8bj99JNW16o0g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 21 July 2016 at 15:20, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp
> wrote:

>
> After some consideration, I found that ExecAsyncWaitForNode
> cannot be reentrant because it means that the control goes into
> async-unaware nodes while having not-ready nodes, that is
> inconsistent state. To inhibit such reentering, I allocated node
> identifiers in depth-first order so that ascendant-descendant
> relationship can be checked (nested-set model) in simple way and
> call ExecAsyncConfigureWait only for the descendant nodes of the
> parameter planstate.
>
>
We have estate->waiting_nodes containing a mix of async-aware and
non-async-aware nodes. I was thinking, an asynchrony tree would have only
async-aware nodes, with possible multiple asynchrony sub-trees in a tree.
Somehow, if we restrict the bubbling up of events only upto the root of the
asynchrony subtree, do you think we can simplify some of the complexities ?
For e.g. ExecAsyncWaitForNode() has become a bit complex seemingly because
it has to handle non-async-nodes also, and that's the reason I believe you
have introduced modes such as ASYNCCONF_FORCE_ADD.

> regards,
>
> --
> Kyotaro Horiguchi
> NTT Open Source Software Center
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Haribabu Kommi 2016-08-01 06:08:51 Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-08-01 04:07:25 Re: Broken order-of-operations in parallel query latch manipulation