Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage()

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Atomics for heap_parallelscan_nextpage()
Date: 2017-08-16 14:51:55
Message-ID: ec67764d-2e6a-5b3b-fdde-00443542ef79@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/16/2017 04:20 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/06/2017 04:57 PM, David Rowley wrote:
>> Andres mentioned in [2] that it might be worth exploring using
>> atomics to do the same job. So I went ahead and did that, and came
>> up with the attached, which is a slight variation on what he
>> mentioned in the thread.
>>
>> To keep things a bit more simple, and streamline, I ended up
>> pulling out the logic for setting the startblock into another
>> function, which we only call once before the first call to
>> heap_parallelscan_nextpage(). I also ended up changing phs_cblock
>> and replacing it with a counter that always starts at zero. The
>> actual block is calculated based on that + the startblock modulo
>> nblocks. This makes things a good bit more simple for detecting
>> when we've allocated all the blocks to the workers, and also works
>> nicely when wrapping back to the start of a relation when we
>> started somewhere in the middle due to piggybacking with a
>> synchronous scan.
>
> Looks reasonable. I edited the comments and the variable names a bit,
> to my liking, and committed. Thanks!

A couple of 32-bit x86 buildfarm members don't seem to be happy with
this. I'll investigate, but if anyone has a clue, I'm all ears...

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-08-16 14:56:16 Re: recovery_target_time = 'now' is not an error but still impractical setting
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-08-16 14:20:11 Re: taking stdbool.h into use