| 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 |
| Message-ID: | ZDNLSvrpUZxRktry@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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.
--
Michael
| 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 |