On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > You'd probably still want to throw an error when workers ended up not > deleting BufFile segments they owned, though, at least for parallel > tuplesort.
Don't see why. > This idea is something that's much more limited than the > SharedTemporaryFile() API that you sketched on the parallel sort > thread, because it only concerns resource management, and not how to > make access to the shared file concurrency safe in any special, > standard way. Actually, I only intended that sketch to be about resource management. Sounds like I didn't explain very well. > Instead, they should be passing around some kind of minimal > private-to-buffile state in shared memory that coordinates backends > participating in BufFile unification. Private state created by > buffile.c, and passed back to buffile.c. Everything should be > encapsulated within buffile.c, IMV, making parallel implementations as > close as possible to their serial implementations. That seems reasonable although I haven't studied the details carefully as yet. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers