On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Well, that would make the function more complicated, but maybe it's a
>>> better answer.  On the other hand, we know that the stats updates are
>>> delivered in a deterministic order, so why not simply replace the
>>> existing test in the wait function with one that looks for the truncation
>>> updates?  If we've gotten those, we must have gotten the earlier ones.
>> I'm not sure if that's actually true with parallel mode.  I'm pretty
>> sure the earlier workers will have terminated before the later ones
>> start, but is that enough to guarantee that the stats collector sees
>> the messages in that order?
> Huh?  Parallel workers are read-only; what would they be doing sending
> any of these messages?

Mumble.  I have no idea what's happening here.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to