On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-12-14 22:00:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I took a look at Andres's patches today and saw that they can't really
>> be applied as-is, because they "temporarily" change the master's
>> ParallelWorkerNumber but have no provision for restoring it after an
> Yea, that's not quite right. Although I'm not sure it really matters
> that much, given that we're not continuing execution after an error. We
> could just reset it at appropriate points - but that seems ugly.
>> I think that approach isn't right anyway; it seems to me that
>> what we want to do is set hash_iv based on we're in a Partial HashAgg,
>> not whether we're in a parallel worker. For instance, if we're
>> somehow in a nodeSubplan.c there's no need for this just because we
>> happen to be in a worker -- I think. That led me to develop the
>> attached patch.
> Hm, I'd rather have this be a more general solution - it doesn't seem
> unlikely that other parts of the system want to know whether they're
> currently executing a parallel portion of the plan. E.g. it really
> should be forbidden to do modifications even in the parallel portion of
> the plan the master executes. Right now that'd escape notice, which I
> don't think is good.
Actually, that wouldn't escape notice. You can test with
IsInParallelMode(). That's entered before beginning execution of the
plan at the outermost level - see ExecutePlan().
>> This may not be perfect, but it causes TPC-H Q18 to complete instead
>> of hanging forever, so I'm going to commit it RSN unless there are
>> loud objections combined with promising steps toward some alternative
>> fix. It's been over a month since these problems were reported, and
>> it is not good that the tree has been in a broken state for that
>> entire time.
> Yea, sorry for that :(. Unfortunately the JIT stuff currently occupies a
> large portion of my brain.
> I really hope to come up with a new version of the patch that does the
> "smarter" expansion soon.
I've got no problem with that at all, but I want to unbreak things
more or less immediately and then you/we can further improve it later.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: