On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik
<k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Yes, I agree with you that complete rewriting of optimizer is huge project
> with unpredictable influence on performance of some queries.
> Changing things incrementally is good approach, but only if we are moving in
> right direction.
> I still not sure that introduction of async. operations is step in right
> direction. Async.ops are used to significantly complicate code (since you
> have to maintain state yourself). It will be bad if implementation of each
> node has to deal with async state itself in its own manner.

I don't really think so.  The design I've proposed makes adding
asynchronous capability to a node pretty easy, with only minor

> My suggestion is to try to provide some generic mechanism for managing state
> transition and have some scheduler which controls this process. It should
> not be responsibility of node implementation to organize
> asynchronous/parallel execution. Instead of this it should just produce set
> of jobs which execution should  be controlled by scheduler. First
> implementation of scheduler can be quite simple. But later in can become
> more clever: try to bind data to processors and do many other optimizations.

Whereas this would require a massive rewrite.

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