Re: Parallel Full Hash Join

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Full Hash Join
Date: 2023-04-09 23:33:30
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 02:19:54PM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> Another worker attached to the batch barrier, saw that it was in
> PHJ_BATCH_SCAN, marked it done and detached. This is fine.
> BarrierArriveAndDetachExceptLast() is meant to ensure no one waits
> (deadlock hazard) and that at least one worker stays to do the unmatched
> scan. It doesn't hurt anything for another worker to join and find out
> there is no work to do.
> We should simply delete this assertion.

I have added an open item about that. This had better be tracked.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2023-04-09 23:40:54 Re: Direct I/O
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-04-09 23:31:21 Re: Non-replayable WAL records through overflows and >MaxAllocSize lengths