| 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>, Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "movead(dot)li" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
| Date: | 2020-08-15 04:40:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK17cjnx485U7v=hMfvZE+VQgyQgkKQL5g-r6JuL27ZrUNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:29 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:20 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'd like to join the party, but IIUC, we don't yet reach a consensus
> > on which one is the right way to go. So I think we need to discuss
> > that first.
>
> Either way, we definitely need patch 0001. One comment:
>
> -CreateWaitEventSet(MemoryContext context, int nevents)
> +CreateWaitEventSet(MemoryContext context, ResourceOwner res, int nevents)
>
> I wonder if it's better to have it receive ResourceOwner like that, or
> to have it capture CurrentResourceOwner. I think the latter is more
> common in existing code.
Sorry for not having discussed anything, but actually, I’ve started
reviewing your patch first. I’ll return to this after reviewing it
some more.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-08-15 04:49:34 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-08-15 03:34:23 | Re: run pgindent on a regular basis / scripted manner |