From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Append with naive multiplexing of FDWs |
Date: | 2020-08-31 10:10:39 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK14PmGtKSCTXatUeP79a5+-ryTfdUKgzKiUTEu65j=Ce-g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 6:20 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> * I know your patch is a POC one, but one concern about it (and
> Horiguchi-san's patch set) is concurrent data fetches by multiple
> foreign scan nodes using the same connection in the case of
> postgres_fdw. Here is an example causing an error:
> select * from pt1, pt2 where pt2.a = 't22' or pt2.a = 't23';
> ERROR: another command is already in progress
> CONTEXT: remote SQL command: DECLARE c4 CURSOR FOR
> SELECT a, b FROM public.t22 WHERE (((a = 't22'::text) OR (a = 't23'::text)))
> (Horiguchi-san’s patch set doesn't work for this query either, causing
> the same error. Though, it looks like he intended to handle cases
> like this by a queuing system added to postgres_fdw to process such
> concurrent data fetches.)
I was wrong here; Horiguchi-san's patch set works well for this query.
Maybe I did something wrong when testing his patch set. Sorry for
that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2020-08-31 10:43:48 | Re: Parallel copy |
Previous Message | Andrey V. Lepikhov | 2020-08-31 10:06:09 | Re: Ideas about a better API for postgres_fdw remote estimates |