On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote:
> 2016-12-13 12:55 GMT+05:00 amul sul <sula...@gmail.com>:
>> I think background-session code is not that much deviated from
>> pg_background code,
> It is not derived, though it is not much deviated. background sessions
> code do not have detailed exceptions and code comments, but it is
> doing somewhat similar things.
>>IIUC background-session patch we can manage to
>> reuse it, as suggested by Robert.  This will allow us to maintain
>> session in long run, we could reuse this session to run subsequent
>> queries instead of maintaining separate worker pool.  Thoughts?
> One API to deal with both features would be much better, sure.
> "Object" like sessions pool are much easier to implement on top of
> session "object" then on top of worker process, PIDs etc.
>>> 4. Query as a future (actually it is implemented already by
>>> pg_background_result)
>>> 5. Promised result. Declare that you are waiting for data of specific
>>> format, execute a query, someone (from another backend) will
>>> eventually place a data to promised result and your query continues
>>> execution.
>> Could you please elaborate more?
>> Do you mean two way communication between foreground & background process?
> It is from C++11 threading: future, promise and async - these are
> related but different kinds of aquiring result between threads.
> Feature - is when caller Cl start thread T(or dequeue thread from
> pool) and Cl can wait until T finishes and provides result.
> Here waiting the result is just like selecting from pg_background_result().
> Promise - is when you declare a variable and caller do not know which
> thread will put the data to this variable. But any thread reading
> promise will wait until other thread put a data to promise.
> There are more parallelism patterns there, like async, deffered, lazy,
> but futures and promises from my point of view are most used.
Nice, thanks for detailed explanation.

We can use shm_mq infrastructure to share any kind of message between
two processes,
but perhaps we might end up with overestimating what originally pg_background
could used for - the user backend will launch workers and give them an
initial set
of instruction and then results will stream back from the workers to
the user backend.

>>> 6. Cancelation: a way to signal to background query that it's time to
>>> quit gracefully.
>> Let me check this too.
> I think Craig is right: any background query must be ready to be shut
> down. That's what databases are about, you can safely pull the plug at
> any moment.

SIGTERM is handled in current pg_background patch, user can terminate
backend execution using pg_cancel_backend() or pg_terminate_backend()
as shown below:

postgres=> select pg_background_launch('insert into foo
(1 row)

postgres=> select pg_terminate_backend(67069);
(1 row)

postgres=> select * from pg_background_result(67069) as (x text);
ERROR:  terminating connection due to administrator command
CONTEXT:  background worker, pid 67069

Thanks & Regards,

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

Reply via email to