| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2016-12-21 21:48:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQnTzyhfvDb0PzswNNNWji0KhzacXSR9ZGi_c5cFcKrvQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 3. Just live with the waste of space.
>
> I am loathe to create a special case for the parallel interface too,
> but I think it's possible that *no* caller will ever actually need to
> live with this restriction at any time in the future.
I just realized that you were actually talking about the waste of
space in workers here, as opposed to the theoretical waste of space
that would occur in the leader should there ever be a parallel
randomAccess tuplesort caller.
To be clear, I am totally against allowing a waste of logtape.c temp
file space in *workers*, because that implies a cost that will most
certainly be felt by users all the time.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Artur Zakirov | 2016-12-21 22:07:11 | Re: [BUG?] pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() error with ALTER TEXT SEARCH CONFIGURATION |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2016-12-21 21:44:09 | Re: Fix checkpoint skip logic on idle systems by tracking LSN progress |