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
>
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 |