> I'm now trying to carry extra performance statistics on CustomScan
> (like DMA transfer rate, execution time of GPU kernels, etc...)
> from parallel workers to the leader process using the DSM segment
> attached by the parallel-context.
> We can require an arbitrary length of DSM using ExecCustomScanEstimate
> hook by extension, then it looks leader/worker can share the DSM area.
> However, we have a problem on this design.
> Below is the implementation of ExecEndGather().
>   void
>   ExecEndGather(GatherState *node)
>   {
>       ExecShutdownGather(node);
>       ExecFreeExprContext(&node->ps);
>       ExecClearTuple(node->ps.ps_ResultTupleSlot);
>       ExecEndNode(outerPlanState(node));
>   }
> It calls ExecShutdownGather() prior to the recursive call of ExecEndNode().
> The DSM segment shall be released on this call, so child node cannot
> reference the DSM at the time of ExecEndNode().
> Is there some technical reason why parallel context needs to be released
> prior to ExecEndNode() of the child nodes? Or, just convention of coding?
> I think I'm not an only person who wants to use DSM of CustomScan to write
> back something extra status of parallel workers.
> How about an idea to move ExecShutdownGather() after the ExecEndNode()?
> To avoid this problem, right now, I allocate an another DSM then inform
> its handle to the parallel workers. This segment can be survived until
> ExecEndCustomScan(), but not best effective way, of course.
My analysis was not collect a bit.

ExecShutdownNode() at ExecutePlan() is the primary point to call
ExecShutdownGather(), thus, parallel context shall not survive at the point
of ExecEndPlan() regardless of the implementation of ExecEndGather.

Hmm, what is the best way to do...? Or, is it completely abuse of DSM that
is setup by the parallel context?

NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>

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

Reply via email to